Interpretation based upon Systematic Theology

[Arthur81]

It is human nature, that any of us who have studied the Bible for any length of time, develop our own Systematic Theology, maybe gained from one source or several sources. Then, we will tend to interpret a passage so that it fits our already believed System of Theology. Don't we all risk doing that?

My 'systematic theology' is as follows: I believe the totality of salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, merited by Christ alone. I do believe every person was predestined before creation to his eternal fate, and from God's side of things, that is unchangeable. BUT, we as men do not know who those predestined are, so only by a person's profession and life can we have an idea.

I hold to what may be termed "New Covenant" theology, because I embrace only the teachings from Christ through the apostolic writings, the epistles. I was never under the Old Covenant, but I've always had the everlasting law of God written in my heart but obedience to none of those laws I would have by instinct could have saved me. My attempt at obedience to any law I perceive as from God can save me because I'm a sinner and cannot obey perfectly.

I learn from the example of God's people in the OT, but I am not under the law of the Old Covenant and never was. I understand that even those claiming to be Jews today would not be under the Old Covenant now, any more than a Gentile is.

I have to ask myself when studying any passage, am I being truly objective, or am I letting my already belief system influence my interpretation, causing me to err? I know I am a fallible human and I cannot be 100% objective as I do not believe any man can be. How careful am I about not being influenced by what I already believe? I am SURE many on the Forum will be happy to point out where they think I 'read into' a passage my belief system, or ignored a passage that seems to contradict my belief system. But how careful are we each, to examine our own objectivity?

I suppose this could be thought of as a risk that we each have, thinking that what we believe is the true "analogy of faith", and maybe use that to excuse being biased in our interpretation. Holding to the analogy of faith sounds more biblical or spiritual, but can't it also be just another term for our personal system of theology?

How do we guard ourselves to avoid this subjectivity as far as humanly possible? Isn't a rigid hermeneutic and strict adherence to rules of interpretation one help? Don't we have to be careful about the definition of words and use standard English dictionary as the rule on that, and a good lexicon of the Biblical languages?

 

[Randy Kluth]

It is human nature, that any of us who have studied the Bible for any length of time, develop our own Systematic Theology, maybe gained from one source or several sources. Then, we will tend to interpret a passage so that it fits our already believed System of Theology. Don't we all risk doing that?

My 'systematic theology' is as follows: I believe the totality of salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, merited by Christ alone. I do believe every person was predestined before creation to his eternal fate, and from God's side of things, that is unchangeable. BUT, we as men do not know who those predestined are, so only by a person's profession and life can we have an idea.

I hold to what may be termed "New Covenant" theology, because I embrace only the teachings from Christ through the apostolic writings, the epistles. I was never under the Old Covenant, but I've always had the everlasting law of God written in my heart but obedience to none of those laws I would have by instinct could have saved me. My attempt at obedience to any law I perceive as from God can save me because I'm a sinner and cannot obey perfectly.

I learn from the example of God's people in the OT, but I am not under the law of the Old Covenant and never was. I understand that even those claiming to be Jews today would not be under the Old Covenant now, any more than a Gentile is.

I have to ask myself when studying any passage, am I being truly objective, or am I letting my already belief system influence my interpretation, causing me to err? I know I am a fallible human and I cannot be 100% objective as I do not believe any man can be. How careful am I about not being influenced by what I already believe? I am SURE many on the Forum will be happy to point out where they think I 'read into' a passage my belief system, or ignored a passage that seems to contradict my belief system. But how careful are we each, to examine our own objectivity?

I suppose this could be thought of as a risk that we each have, thinking that what we believe is the true "analogy of faith", and maybe use that to excuse being biased in our interpretation. Holding to the analogy of faith sounds more biblical or spiritual, but can't it also be just another term for our personal system of theology?

How do we guard ourselves to avoid this subjectivity as far as humanly possible? Isn't a rigid hermeneutic and strict adherence to rules of interpretation one help? Don't we have to be careful about the definition of words and use standard English dictionary as the rule on that, and a good lexicon of the Biblical languages?

Wow, that is truly an objective, humble starting point for any enquiry into our systematic theology--are we biased, and we likely are indeed subject to "influences!" Yes and yes. But I believe there are answers, though certainly flawed in some ways.

Yes, I will point out where I think you have an underlying "bias," though I do not consider it particularly troublesome. You seem to have the underlying presumption that our goodness is determined by our Predestination rather than by our devotion to Works.

Well, these words are laden with different meanings, depending on where we're coming from. I view this as a kind of "bias" because it was Luther's argument in the book "The Bondage of the Will." Nothing we can do by Works "saves." We are saved by God's foreknowledge and predetermination, aka Predestination.

And so, if we're Protestant, and we both are, then we are likely tainted with this Reform prejudice that "Works" are evil, and God's Predestination is all-determinative. The problem with this, as I see it, is that it casts a shade on "Works," as viewed by Catholics and others, who see our choice for Christ as essential in our Salvation.

Is this a "Work?" Christ said it was, but it really depends on where we're coming from. Are we talking about "Works designed to *earn* Salvation," or "Works designed by God for us to *respond* to His revelation, or Word?"

Anyway, the reason I am Predestinarian, as you are, is for a different reason, perhaps, than you. I don't have many gifts, but an unusual gift happened to me many years ago when I thought I may be "getting lost spiritually," when everything was going south. I was raised a Christian, committed myself fully to Christ in my late adolescence, but then, everything turned bad.

In this state God opened my eyes to see people who were Predestined and those who were not. I've never been wrong. But it depends on when God shows me because those who God has Predestined look so much like those He has not Predestined at times. Sheep and Goats look a lot alike, and they are equally loveable.

Being this way now for nearly 50 years I can say that I've never been wrong. Or rather, God has never been wrong.

So I can't say that "none of us knows who will be Saved." God certainly knows and He can tell us. He told me this at a time when I personally needed to hear it. Those who don't really care to be Saved don't really care to hear it.

The only thing I can conclude from this experience is that God always planned everybody to be His own. But an enemy planted seeds in God's field that God did not pre-plan. However, He gave the ability to Satan and to Man to cooperate in revolt against God. The result are children who freely choose to rebel, like Satan, against God's will. God knows, in advance, who they will be.

I say these are all "Predestined," but I don't fully understand that. I do believe in Free Will. Maybe I'm only seeing them in real time, as they are making choices now. But somehow it appears as if they are born with a preset inclination, which enables me to see who they are from the start.

I know how crazy this sounds. But I assure you, nothing God does is haphazard or arbitrary. He has a very clear reason for everything He does. Salvation is not a crap shoot.

 

[marks]

It is human nature, that any of us who have studied the Bible for any length of time, develop our own Systematic Theology, maybe gained from one source or several sources. Then, we will tend to interpret a passage so that it fits our already believed System of Theology. Don't we all risk doing that?

Not necessarily.

Being somewhat autistic maybe gives me an advantage in that area.

My Systematic, if you will, is to accept whatever a passage says, and when I realize that I need to adjust my views, no problem! I love to embrace new understanding.

I have to ask myself when studying any passage, am I being truly objective, or am I letting my already belief system influence my interpretation, causing me to err? I know I am a fallible human and I cannot be 100% objective as I do not believe any man can be. How careful am I about not being influenced by what I already believe? I am SURE many on the Forum will be happy to point out where they think I 'read into' a passage my belief system, or ignored a passage that seems to contradict my belief system. But how careful are we each, to examine our own objectivity?

Great question!!

We also have our fleshy part that wants us to ignore the meanings of some passages, so I think we have to root that out also.

How do we guard ourselves to avoid this subjectivity as far as humanly possible? Isn't a rigid hermeneutic and strict adherence to rules of interpretation one help? Don't we have to be careful about the definition of words and use standard English dictionary as the rule on that, and a good lexicon of the Biblical languages?

I always like what Walter Martin said, "Words have meanings". So we have to follow the Bible's words for what they mean, and not what we want them to mean.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

I always like what Walter Martin said, "Words have meanings". So we have to follow the Bible's words for what they mean, and not what we want them to mean.

Walter Martin was a great man, and substantially influenced my life in the matter of Scriptural understanding and debate. I never was good at arguing with cultists, but his approach to Scriptures was very sound. And he was far "nicer" as a person than people thought, due to his apparent "hostility" towards the cults.

Thanks for mentioning him. I used to live fairly close to his headquarters down in S. CA, and got to meet one of the people who worked with him. When I for a short time got into a cult, some of his experts on this cult wanted to meet with me, but I was too shy. A friend found a watch that had a name inscribed Donald Barnhouse. I recognized it as Martin's mentor.

Incidentally, Martin is the one who by his teaching influenced me to become Predestinarian. Up to then I was a hardened Arminian (at the time I didn't even know it was called that). I couldn't refute what he quoted from the Scriptures.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

It is human nature, that any of us who have studied the Bible for any length of time, develop our own Systematic Theology, maybe gained from one source or several sources. Then, we will tend to interpret a passage so that it fits our already believed System of Theology. Don't we all risk doing that?

My 'systematic theology' is as follows: I believe the totality of salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, merited by Christ alone. I do believe every person was predestined before creation to his eternal fate, and from God's side of things, that is unchangeable. BUT, we as men do not know who those predestined are, so only by a person's profession and life can we have an idea.

I hold to what may be termed "New Covenant" theology, because I embrace only the teachings from Christ through the apostolic writings, the epistles. I was never under the Old Covenant, but I've always had the everlasting law of God written in my heart but obedience to none of those laws I would have by instinct could have saved me. My attempt at obedience to any law I perceive as from God can save me because I'm a sinner and cannot obey perfectly.

I learn from the example of God's people in the OT, but I am not under the law of the Old Covenant and never was. I understand that even those claiming to be Jews today would not be under the Old Covenant now, any more than a Gentile is.

I have to ask myself when studying any passage, am I being truly objective, or am I letting my already belief system influence my interpretation, causing me to err? I know I am a fallible human and I cannot be 100% objective as I do not believe any man can be. How careful am I about not being influenced by what I already believe? I am SURE many on the Forum will be happy to point out where they think I 'read into' a passage my belief system, or ignored a passage that seems to contradict my belief system. But how careful are we each, to examine our own objectivity?

I suppose this could be thought of as a risk that we each have, thinking that what we believe is the true "analogy of faith", and maybe use that to excuse being biased in our interpretation. Holding to the analogy of faith sounds more biblical or spiritual, but can't it also be just another term for our personal system of theology?

How do we guard ourselves to avoid this subjectivity as far as humanly possible? Isn't a rigid hermeneutic and strict adherence to rules of interpretation one help? Don't we have to be careful about the definition of words and use standard English dictionary as the rule on that, and a good lexicon of the Biblical languages?

If you find out the answer to this problem, you will be the first to know!

But a literal, grammatical historical hermeneutic is by fdar teh best way to understand SCripture and develop systematic theology.

when objecitve absolute statements are made, we must understand apparent "contradictory " passages in light of the absolutes. Like eternal Security. All passages that say one can lose their salvation must understand that salvation is eternally secure so they can look for the real naswers .

 

[ScottA]

How do we guard ourselves to avoid this subjectivity as far as humanly possible? Isn't a rigid hermeneutic and strict adherence to rules of interpretation one help? Don't we have to be careful about the definition of words and use standard English dictionary as the rule on that, and a good lexicon of the Biblical languages?

I have only quoted your last paragraph so as not to complicate the issue, but rather be concise in giving an answer to the pertinent question(s).

It is our hearts that are to be guarded against all enemies, which having first been born evil and of the flesh, we ourselves are included and perhaps the greatest threat due to our close proximity. What does Jesus say? “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself..." Certainly, we are also to deny all evil that comes our way from without--but here Jesus places what is most import in first priority. And that may be enough said. But as a how-to, I will add that I personally, when setting down to write here, or to speak, or even think, I send up a prayer not unlike one of Jesus's own, saying, "You Lord, not me."

As for "a rigid hermeneutic and strict adherence to rules of interpretation", such a practices is only good if the light in us is not darkness...which, unfortunately is where most of us begin. In other words, it is most likely that to move into such a practice first, would be to circumvent the Spirit with our on logic and understanding, or that of well intended, but perhaps lesser theological "experts." The example or how-to here is best expressed in the story of Mary and Martha.

As for languages and the meanings of words, yes such insights can indeed be very helpful--but not without first understanding the potential danger. In other words, it may very well be a fool's errand as God has confused "all language" the resulting in "much study is wearisome to the flesh." Meaning that "study" is not the best means by which to navigate, but rather, the Spirit, who Himself inspirited every word from God.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

I believe the totality of salvation is by grace alone through faith alone

Some claim salvation is by faith alone... they do not understand that when we believe, they IS in fact a good work!

It's something WE do thru Christ.
It's not "earning" our salvation... it's responding properly to the Lord's plan of salvation for mankind.

John 6:28,29
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom he hath sent.

If we were to do nothing, the Jesus would have corrected them and told them "you heretics, quit trying to earn your salvation!" But that's NOT what Jesus told them.

Here are things God's Word tells us we must DO... to be saved:

*We must believe

John 6:28,29
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom he hath sent.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

*We must Repent

Mark 1:15
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

*We must Hear God's Word / Receive and Accept God's Word

Luke 8:12
Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

*Confess Your Sins

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

*Confess with your Mouth that Jesus is Lord

Romans 10:9,10
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

*Turn from Your Self Righteousness / Humble Yourself

Matthew 18:3
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.


Ephesians 2:10
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

 

[quietthinker]

It is human nature, that any of us who have studied the Bible for any length of time, develop our own Systematic Theology, maybe gained from one source or several sources. Then, we will tend to interpret a passage so that it fits our already believed System of Theology. Don't we all risk doing that?

My 'systematic theology' is as follows: I believe the totality of salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, merited by Christ alone. I do believe every person was predestined before creation to his eternal fate, and from God's side of things, that is unchangeable. BUT, we as men do not know who those predestined are, so only by a person's profession and life can we have an idea.

I hold to what may be termed "New Covenant" theology, because I embrace only the teachings from Christ through the apostolic writings, the epistles. I was never under the Old Covenant, but I've always had the everlasting law of God written in my heart but obedience to none of those laws I would have by instinct could have saved me. My attempt at obedience to any law I perceive as from God can save me because I'm a sinner and cannot obey perfectly.

I learn from the example of God's people in the OT, but I am not under the law of the Old Covenant and never was. I understand that even those claiming to be Jews today would not be under the Old Covenant now, any more than a Gentile is.

I have to ask myself when studying any passage, am I being truly objective, or am I letting my already belief system influence my interpretation, causing me to err? I know I am a fallible human and I cannot be 100% objective as I do not believe any man can be. How careful am I about not being influenced by what I already believe? I am SURE many on the Forum will be happy to point out where they think I 'read into' a passage my belief system, or ignored a passage that seems to contradict my belief system. But how careful are we each, to examine our own objectivity?

I suppose this could be thought of as a risk that we each have, thinking that what we believe is the true "analogy of faith", and maybe use that to excuse being biased in our interpretation. Holding to the analogy of faith sounds more biblical or spiritual, but can't it also be just another term for our personal system of theology?

How do we guard ourselves to avoid this subjectivity as far as humanly possible? Isn't a rigid hermeneutic and strict adherence to rules of interpretation one help? Don't we have to be careful about the definition of words and use standard English dictionary as the rule on that, and a good lexicon of the Biblical languages?

That was straight to the point and your questions fair and reasonable.
My premise is found in Paul's statement....

2 Corinthians 1:20....
'For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us.

Here is the central hub of interpretation. Here is the measure I use how to understand the intent of scripture and to address your question 'How do we guard ourselves to avoid this subjectivity as far as humanly possible?'

I have found that Jesus has become an ancillary figure to the 'systematic theology' of many ie, they have a certain theological construct which they fit Jesus into in some form or other, rather than understanding he is the central figure around which all understanding and interpretation including the consciousness of the Universe centres around.

An extension of this principle means that Jesus is even the central figure in the OT and becomes the litmus test which sorts out various views.

How to apply this way of seeing is what Paul labours to do.

 

[JBO]

Is this a "Work?" Christ said it was, but it really depends on where we're coming from. Are we talking about "Works designed to *earn* Salvation," or "Works designed by God for us to *respond* to His revelation, or Word?"

Yes, it is a work. It is something we do. But it is not a work of law. There are many things that are works but not works of the law. Believing is but one of those works. Romans 10:10 says "with the mouth one confesses and is saved". So clearly confessing is something one does; it is a work. But it is not a work of the law. Paul does not ever say that we can or will be saved without doing anything, nor does any other NT writer.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Paul does not ever say that we can or will be saved without doing anything, nor does any other NT writer.

And let's keep in mind that... it's the Lord Who told them what to write.

NT writers were not just making stuff up as they went as some suppose.

 

[quietthinker]

And let's keep in mind that... it's the Lord Who told them what to write.

NT writers were not just making stuff up as they went as some suppose.

Do you mean they didn't take responsibility for the words they wrote?

 

[RedFan]

And let's keep in mind that... it's the Lord Who told them what to write.

How do you know this?

 

[marks]

Yes, it is a work. It is something we do. But it is not a work of law. There are many things that are works but not works of the law. Believing is but one of those works. Romans 10:10 says "with the mouth one confesses and is saved". So clearly confessing is something one does; it is a work. But it is not a work of the law. Paul does not ever say that we can or will be saved without doing anything, nor does any other NT writer.

I think our lives are intended by God to be completely filled with works, and not the works of the Law.

Ephesians 2:10 KJV
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Romans 4:4-5 KJV
4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Concerning salvation - justification - are there works we do? Here, it says, "to him that worketh not", so "doing a work" in order to be saved disqualifies one from justification, his faith counted as righteousness.

Does this refer, though, to the works of the Law?

Romans 4:1-3 KJV
1) What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2) For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Abraham predated the Law, so this would not refer to that.

We are to walk in our God-ordained works, but we are not justified by works, of any kind. Faith that does works is salvific faith.

Much love!

 

[JBO]

Jesus said that believing was a work. So then when Abraham believed God, that was a work. And that was counted unto Abraham for righteousness. That is, Abraham was justified. He was saved. That brings up the whole question of what is law.

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

There is no reason to think that was any different for those living before the law of Moses was given.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Do you mean they didn't take responsibility for the words they wrote?

It was not their words that they were writing... you wouldn't be questioning the validity of God's Word... would you?

Either you believe it's of God or you believe it is of men.

Lots of folks now days have been deceived to believe that it's just men witting a bunch of stuff which opens the door for them to reject portions of scripture they don't like.

Those that reject what God says... rejects God!

Those doing this are following the devil whether they know it or not!!

 

[quietthinker]

It was not their words that they were writing... you wouldn't be questioning the validity of God's Word... would you?

Either you believe it's of God or you believe it is of men.

Lots of folks now days have been deceived to believe that it's just men witting a bunch of stuff which opens the door for them to reject portions of scripture they don't like.

Those that reject what God says... rejects God!

Those doing this are following the devil whether they know it or not!!
View attachment 40994

Is that like your words....all inspired?.....Ohhh, they're not! ...then they must be of the devil!

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Is that like your words....all inspired?.....Ohhh, they're not! ...then they must be of the devil!

The devil is the one telling you the Apostles were not being led by the Holy Ghost to know what to write.

You should REPENT of that at your earliest convenience!

 

[quietthinker]

The devil is the one telling you the Apostles were not being led by the Holy Ghost to know what to write.

You should REPENT of that at your earliest convenience! View attachment 41004

or is the devil telling you to avoid the question because addressing it is too close to the bone?

 

[JBO]

It was not their words that they were writing... you wouldn't be questioning the validity of God's Word... would you?

Either you believe it's of God or you believe it is of men.

Lots of folks now days have been deceived to believe that it's just men witting a bunch of stuff which opens the door for them to reject portions of scripture they don't like.

Those that reject what God says... rejects God!

Those doing this are following the devil whether they know it or not!!
View attachment 40994

There is no indication that the Holy Spirit dictated the words that are written. That is not what it means tthat God's word is the inspired work of the apostles and prophets.

Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Joh 16:4 But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you. "I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you.

 

[Lambano]

I suppose this could be thought of as a risk that we each have, thinking that what we believe is the true "analogy of faith", and maybe use that to excuse being biased in our interpretation.

I think you are correct in identifying Systematic Theology as a risk. Isn't that what happened to the Pharisees? These people thought they knew their Torah and went above and beyond to try to follow it, but Jesus came along and didn't fit into their systematic framework. So they missed it.