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?
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?