Several months ago I began walking for exercise. Subsequently, I have become an mp3 sermon junkie. To keep my mind occupied while my body burns calories, I load my mp3 player with sermons and hit the pavement. Weather permitting, I listen to a dozen or more sermons a week. The internet offers a steady stream of good material to feed my habit.
John Piper’s sermons get more ear time than any other. His daily radio program and his weekly sermons can be downloaded, free of charge. I almost feel like Piper has become my pastor. God has used his preaching and writing ministry to radically enhance my vision of God and His sovereignty.
On Sunday mornings, I have been preaching through Galatians at Lakeshore Baptist Church. As part of my weekly preparation I listen to a couple of sermons on the text I will be preaching the next week. Tom Ascol’s series, “The Truth of the Gospel” and Phil Newton’s Galatians Series have been a wonderful help as I try to immerse myself in Galatians. Phil Newton pastors Southwoods Baptist Church in Memphis, TN and offers several years worth of sermons on his site. They host the Mid-South Founders Conference. I enjoyed virtually attending the last three years on my walks in January. Tom Ascol is pastor of Grace Baptist Church Cape Coral FL and heads up Founders Ministries.
Last week, First Baptist Church St. Peters, Missouri hosted the Southern Baptist Founders Midwest Conference. I checked their web site to see if they possibly included the conference in mp3. They have not, but they do have Pastor Joe Braden’s Ephesians series. I listened to a couple of his sermons this week. I think I will enjoy walking through Ephesians with him in the coming months.
This semester Southern Seminary began making available their chapel messages in mp3. Yesterday I enjoyed listening to Russ Moore’s sermon from last Thursday. I see Don Carson delivered their J. B. Gay Lectures last month. His three session talks entitled “Hard Texts: Why Does Hebrews Cite the Old Testament Like That?” sound very interesting. I have downloaded them and will add them to my playlist for next week.
Phil Johnson provides a treasure trove of sermons through his Sword and Trowel Sermon Library. Phil teaches at Grace Community Church and serves as Executive Director of John MacArthur’s Grace to You. He also hosts messages by S. Lance Quinn, Jerry Wragg, Rick Anderson, Terry Wragg, Don Green, Marc Wragg, and James Dolezal. I believe these men all serve as teaching elders at Grace Community Church.
I should warn you, following the above links could lead to an addiction. My habit has escalated beyond being satisfied with downloading one sermon at a time. If you use the Firefox web browser (highly recommended) you can get the downThemAll extension. this tool allows you to set a filter and download all the mp3 files from one page with a single click. For example, if I hit the sermon archive at FBC Durham NC, I can slurp down 150 of Andy Davis’ sermons while I head out for my morning walk.
Yesterday I posted an email discussion I had with a friend of mine concerning the importance of sound exegesis, “Pragmatism: A Faulty Hermeneutic.” I believe that the validity of a doctrine rests in the proper understanding of scripture, not in apparent human results. The issue really centers around whether scripture or experience provides our “supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried.” I side with scripture. So does my friend Mike, but sometimes we need to be reminded of how that confession works out in our proclamation.
If we take the Bible seriously, we must find the meaning of scripture within the text itself. We must take into consideration the literary and historical context of the words, sentences, and paragraphs of scripture and seek to understand their meaning before we proclaim a gut reaction or half-baked understanding of the text.
That reminds me of another heated email exchange between Mike and I regarding the importance of doing sound exegesis. The issue that began the discussion was the meaning of “husband of one wife” in 1 Timothy 3. One of the guys, Bill, made a very good post that raised some important questions. He gave four or five possible interpretations of the phrase and called for further investigation and study in an attempt to uncover what Paul meant. Mike basically told us that we were wasting our time discussing and investigating the issue. Below is the post Mike answered Bill with. Then I laid into Mike, rebuking his faulty hermeneutics.
Bro Bill,
All the “extra biblical” information has been examined over and over again and still people cannot agree. I believe it is a “faith” matter and that God intended it so. I do not believe Paul made a mistake by not being clearer, because I believe he gave us what God wanted him to give us.
That “the just must live by faith” is more than axiomatic, it is the source of all our theology. It is the basice of every doctrine. God, it appears, decided to give us opportunity to have a faith relationship rather than a “legalistic” relationship with Him. I think more arguments would be settled, if we could just realize that each of us are on different levels at differing times in our lives. While there are many factors which seem clear, they too are based on faith. We cannot prove God, but by faith and relationship we believe He is. By faith we believe that Scripture is the fullest revelation of Him to man.
All I’m saying is that all our absolutes are faith based, why should this be any different?
Mike
Mike, with all due respect, I must object. Once again you are unwittingly demeaning the scriptures with your postmodernism dressed up in pious garb. While it may sound orthodox to say, we need to “take it by faith,” that makes no sense in this context. I must ask, take what by faith? Bill proposed several possible interpretations of the passage and correctly called for further study to determine witch is the most appropriate to the meaning of the text. Your response was to take “it” by faith. Which one of the possible interpretations do you want us to take by faith? How do we determine which one? Should we place all the possibilities in a hat, draw one, and take that one by faith? Your proposed hermeneutical methodology is ludicrous.
While there may not be a consensus as to what the text means, the one thing we as Bible believers know - there IS a meaning. I believe we can uncover that meaning through the grammatical historical method of interpretation. The bible does not mean different things to different people depending on what level they are in their life, as you say. The meaning of the text is found in the text itself. When the Holy spirit moved the Apostle Paul to pen the letter to Timothy, he meant something specific. It is our duty to study and determine authorial intent.
Faith comes into the hermeneutical process once we have established what the text says. For example, Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Through the grammatical historical process we determine what this text means. The verse may not answer the how, when, and why questions to our satisfaction, but it does speak to the what and who questions. Genesis 1:1 does not tell us what year this “beginning” took place, or exactly how God accomplished such a thing, or even why He, in His providence decided to create. The straightforward statement does make a bold theological statement regarding who and what. God created the heavens and the earth. Now we are to take that truth claim by faith. We must read on in the text to pick up some of the answers to our other questions. When you place faith over against the text, you replace the authority of the text with relativism. You can’t just pick a verse, inject your own meaning into the text, and then piously claim to be taking “it” by faith. In other words, we must take the scripture by faith, not our gut feeling by faith.
Mike, I’m only hard on you because I love you as a dear brother in the Lord. I know you are very conservative in many areas, but you are liberal when it comes to the interpretation of scripture. Your low view of the text bothers me. While you pound the pulpit of inerrancy, you reject its practical application. By dismissing serious study of the scriptures you undercut what you claim to affirm.
You are correct, we need to have faith, but faith in the inerrant authoritative, written word of God, not faith in our own unstudied fallible preconceptions of what the scriptures may or may not be saying.
by grace alone,
Don A. Elbourne Jr.
You are very wrong Don. I have a very high view of the text. However, I accept by faith that Scripture is true. When I say our belief is “Faith” based, I’m saying that I believe by faith that everything in Scripture is true.
That, my friend, is a very High View of Scripture. I do not base my belief on the hermaneutical mechanications of men, but on the plain teaching of Scripture. That is why, when Scripture says husband of one wife, I have no problem accepting that it is an argument against divorce.
When I say that extrabiblical material has been explored by good men on both sides without resolution, I mean that they both have arguments and both believe their particular hermanutical mechanication to be correct. When such mechanications conflict with the body of Scripture from my perspective, I take the literalist view. How you can call that a “low view” of Scripture is beyond me. I look at the justifications some make and wonder how they arrive at their conclusions. I simply believe you have developed faulty reasoning.
One other statement, because I’m about as frustrated with you as I’ve been in years with anyone, I’m talking about taking the Scripture by faith. Just who do you think you are, that you seem to think you have such knowledge? You’re just plain wrong on this. This is the second time you’ve accused me of a low view of Scripture and I’d like to know just what you consider a “high view”. Listen, by faith I believe that everything taught in Scripture is true. Whether or not others believe it is irrelevant. You cannot prove that Scripture is God’s Word. You must accept it by faith.
I believe in a seven day creation. I don’t understand it, but by faith I believe it. Many of you try to figure out ways to explain it, while I believe that there are some things which we will never understand. I believe in a Young Earth, about seven thousand years or so. The psuedo-intellectuals’ attempt to rationalize so called science with Scripture starts with bringing Scripture into line with science. Those who have a “high view” of Scripture start with bringing Science into line with the inerrant Scripture.
I’m sorry. I guess I’m just too dense to understand your conclusions. Perhaps one day I will attain such intellectual prowess as to understand what you mean, but for now you’re obviously just too far advanced for my finite mind.
Mike
Mike,
You can rant and rave, spit, holler, and stomp like Yosemite Sam, claiming that you have a high view of scripture, but your treatment of the text belies your affirmation. When you resist the discovery of authorial intent, you are taking a low view of scripture. When you reject attempts at sound exegesis, you are taking a low view of scripture. when you scoff at and refuse to consider the original languages that God used to breathe out His inerrant Word, you are taking a low view of scripture. When you cavalierly dismiss the literary structure of the God-inspired text, you are taking a low view of scripture. When you deny any consideration of the historical and grammatical context of a passage, you are taking a low view of scripture. When you instead opt to latch onto your preconceptions of what the text means to you over against any attempt to uncover what the text meant when it was written, you are taking a low view of scripture. When you advocate taking a gut reaction interpretation to an English translation by faith and negate any further study, you are taking a low view of scripture.
For those following this thread, please understand this is not about divorced ministers. There are good Bible believing men who have approached this text, took into consideration the literary and historical context, compared scripture with scripture, attempted to rightly divide the word of truth, and have come to the conclusion that Paul here prohibits divorced men from the pastorate. While I may disagree with their conclusion, I can respect their exegetical methodology and their high view of scripture. What I can not respect is lip service to inerrancy by someone who refuses to take the bible seriously on its own terms and scoffs at any attempt by others to do so.
Mike, you say you are taking a “literalist” view of this passage. Everyone does. I do not know anyone who interprets “one woman man” in this text symbolically or figuratively. Literalism is not the issue. What you are doing is taking the vagaries of an English translation and asking us to take by faith what you feel the phrase means without any further investigation of what Paul meant. That is a low view of scripture. It sets a human opinion and relativistic feelings above the authorial intent of the text.
Mike, I’m not trying to raise your blood pressure. Please forgive me if I’m doing so. My goal is to point out faulty hermeneutical methodologies that divert people away from a serious approach to scriptural interpretation. If the Bible says an ax head floated, I believe an ax head floated. If the Bible says Jesus rose from the dead, I believe Jesus rose from the dead. If the Bible says the Earth was created 7000 years ago, I’d believe the Earth was created 7000 years ago. If the Bible said that one day trees of the field will one day literally sprout human appendages and clap their hands, I’d believe it. If the Bible says a pink and purple polka dotted panda bear was on Noah’s ark, I’d believe that a pink and purple polka dotted panda bear was on Noah’s ark. If the Bible said that single men or married men without children could not be pastor’s, I’d go with that. Does the Bible claim these things? Some of them - yes, some of them - no. Its our duty to study and determine what the Bible actually says. The method by which we determine what the Bible says is hermeneutics. You can belittle the process by calling them “human mechanications” if you’d like (Whatever that means), but if we are going to take a high view of scripture we must take the bible itself seriously and not just place faith in our own understanding. (Proverbs 3:5) Once we have rightly exegeted the text, we can stand on the truth of God’s Word with unwavering faith. That is a high view of scripture. Anything less is not.
by grace alone,
Don A. Elbourne Jr.
Don, I do none of what you suggest. Where do you get your conclusions? You try to read too much into things.
I do not disavow the original texts. I simply say that the extrabiblical material has been evaluated and argued time and again by people on both sides.
You are taking a pseudo-intellectual position on these things. You put words into my mouth. I’ve never said that the original languages are not important. I study and use them all the time. However, I accept by faith the conclusions drawn, just as you do.
In spite of your protestations, you were not there. You must accept by faith much of what you accept.
When you say that I latch on to my preconceptions over against trying to discover what the text means, you are speaking from total ignorance. I’ve never advocated such an absurd position. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean my view of Scripture is lower. Just because the conclusions I arrive at don’t jive with yours, does that make you and you superior? Only in your own mind.
Accept that others just might do as much study as you, and that others just might have a small amount of intellectual capacity. We can disagree with your conclusions.
I will admit to having some concern with those who put such emphasis on their ability to extract truth from difficult passages based upon their unique understanding of syntax and literary form. That tells me that Scripture is only for the elite and makes me think you have a very low view of Scripture, because it was written, for the most part, for the common folk in the common language of the day.
If God is not able to communicate to His servants without their having a doctorate in hermanutics, then it is an elitist religion. I totally disavow such, and think those of you who hold such positions are wrong-minded.
Mike
Mike, Let me respond to your specific points below.
Don, I do none of what you suggest. Where do you get your conclusions? You try to read too much into things.
I get them from your words. Let’s back track. Bill offered several possible interpretations of a passage and called for further investigation into their meaning. You disparaged his attempt by saying we ought to just take “it” by faith. I’m not arguing against your interpretation of the passage. I’m pointing out the importance of discovering what “it” is. What should we take by faith? And how do we discover what “it” is? I believe that step can not be brushed away as unimportant.
I do not disavow the original texts. I simply say that the extrabiblical material has been evaluated and argued time and again by people on both sides.
The “original texts” and “extra-biblical material” are two different things. When I use the term “the text” I’m referring to the Bible itself, usually the Greek or Hebrew. The term “extra-biblical material” refers to Greek writings that may be contemporaneous with the Biblical texts, but are not contained in the Bible. These writings serve only to shed light on what a particular word or phrase might mean. Lest we forget, the Greek text is the Bible.
You are taking a pseudo-intellectual position on these things.
I do not understand how a call to study the Bible on its own terms is pseudo-intellectual.
You put words into my mouth. I’ve never said that the original languages are not important. I study and use them all the time. However, I accept by faith the conclusions drawn, just as you do.
In spite of your protestations, you were not there. You must accept by faith much of what you accept.
We are talking apples and oranges here. What is it that we are to take by faith? That is what I’m trying to get you to see. As I said in my earlier post, once we have established what the text says, then and only then are we to take it by faith. If we take by faith our preconceptions of what we think a passage means then we are opening ourselves up to anyone’s fancy. When we cut the anchor rope of the grammatical historical method of interpretation, we set ourselves adrift into a dangerous sea of anything goes. Our interpretation of a passage must be anchored firmly in the text itself
When you say that I latch on to my preconceptions over against trying to discover what the text means, you are speaking from total ignorance. I’ve never advocated such an absurd position.
How else are we to understand your suggestion to “take it by faith” before we determine what Paul actually meant by the phrase? You told us that we were wasting our time trying to determine which of the possible interpretations best fit the text.
Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean my view of Scripture is lower. Just because the conclusions I arrive at don’t jive with yours, does that make you and you superior? Only in your own mind.
You miss the point at hand. This is not about agreeing on a particular interpretation of scripture. Its about agreeing that there is an objective meaning in scripture and it is our duty to use whatever tools necessary to get at those meanings so that we can rightly divide the word of truth. We can not ignore the grammar and syntactical construction of a sentence or turn a blind eye to the context in which a particular phrase is set and have any confidence that we are correctly understanding what the author meant. The words themselves are important. What did Paul mean when he wrote what he wrote? A refusal to ask that question belittles the word of God.
I will admit to having some concern with those who put such emphasis on their ability to extract truth from difficult passages based upon their unique understanding of syntax and literary form.
Mike, read the words you just wrote my friend. Read them again. I’ll agree with you on one thing. If someone claims to have a “unique” understanding, we may want to look closer at their interpretation, however let me address the main point you make here. Are you suggesting that we extract meaning from the text apart from “understanding of syntax and literary form?” The Bible contains words. Those words make up phrases and sentences. Those sentences make up paragraphs and those paragraphs are contained in larger units. In order to understand a sentence, we must understand grammar and syntax at some level or else the string of letters don’t have any meaning. Recognizing the literary form is essential to proper interpretation. I’m advocating that we take seriously the words, phrases, sentences, literary units, historical context, and genres of the biblical text. Anything less is a violation of our belief in plenary verbal inspiration.
That tells me that Scripture is only for the elite and makes me think you have a very low view of Scripture, because it was written, for the most part, for the common folk in the common language of the day.
We are not talking magic. A child just learning how to speak understands grammar at some level. They may not be able to diagram a sentence, label the parts of speech, or parse a verb, but they know that “May I have an egg for breakfast?” has meaning. If a parent ignores the grammar and syntax of the sentence the child may end up with a scorpion instead (Luke 11:11-12), if anything at all. Words and authorial intent are extremely important. If its important to understand what our children are saying, how much more important is it to know what our heavenly Father is saying through His written word?
If God is not able to communicate to His servants without their having a doctorate in hermanutics, then it is an elitist religion. I totally disavow such, and think those of you who hold such positions are wrong-minded.
Who said anything about needing a doctorate degree? I know you think I’m wasting my time pursuing mine, but I make no apologies for my passion for God’s Word. I do not believe it is necessary for every Christian to study in a formal setting, however I do believe that every Christian is obligated to read, study, and search the scriptures for themselves. This belief is one of the core things that makes me a Baptist. We do not simply take by faith what the Pope says, or what the church decrees, or what the pastor affirms. Instead we are to search and examine the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)
I agree with A.W. Pink when he said:
The Bible is not designed for lazy people. Truth has to be bought (Proverbs 23:23), but the slothful and worldly minded are not willing to pay the price required. That ‘price’ is intimated in Proverbs 2:1-5: there must be a diligent applying of the heart, a crying after knowledge, a seeking for an apprehension of spiritual things with the ardour and determination that men employ when seeking for silver; and a searching for a deeper and fuller knowledge of the truth such as men put forth when searching for hid treasures - if we would really understand the things of God. Those who complain that these articles are ‘too difficult’ or ‘too deep’ for them, do but betray the sad state of their souls and reveal how little they really value the truth; otherwise they would ask God to enable them to concentrate, and reread these pages perseveringly until they made their contents their own. People are willing to work and study hard and long to master one of the arts or sciences, but where spiritual and eternal things are concerned it is usually otherwise
(A.W. Pink; cited in Iain H. Murray, The Life of Arthur W. Pink, p.235).
Sometimes interpreting and understanding scripture takes hard work.
The typical pastor cannot exegete a complete sermon from the original languages each week, much less three. The typical pastor in a Southern Baptist Church averages about 80-100 people each week. They do most of the ministry, most of the visiting, and most of the evangelism.
Mike, a man who is too busy to rightly divide the Word of Truth is too busy to preach it. I’d rather a pastor preach sound exegesis in one 20 minute sermon a week, than have him preach six one hour sermons filled with eisegesis, his own human thoughts, or false doctrine. If a difficult passage takes too much time to exegete correctly, then something else needs to be preached. The Bible is too important to treat its meaning lightly or to give its proper understanding a low priority. We can’t use our busyness as an excuse to preach any old thing. My human opinion or philosophy caries no weight. God’s word is our authority. We must preach the Word. How can we do that if we don’t take the time to investigate what it means?
If we are going to stand on the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy, let’s couple that stand with practical application of it. Let’s take the time to read, study, and understand the word that God has so graciously given us. Lets not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God. The words are important. Their meaning is important. Once we grasp onto that meaning, then we can preach the truth with confidence and honestly proclaim “thus saith the Lord.”
by grace alone,
Don A. Elbourne Jr.
Faulty hermeneutics plagues modern Christianity and stands as one of the most corrupting influences to God honoring faith. The Apostle Paul urged young timothy to “rightly handle the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15) In doing so we prove to be workers without shame. No matter how hard we pound the pulpit insisting that the Bible stands as the Word of God, if we treat its content flippantly, we belie our own words and bring reproach upon the cause of Christ. Faulty hermeneutics weakens our preaching like termites eating away at our pulpits. We must diligently seek to exegete (extract meaning from the text) not eisegete (inject our meaning into the text) scripture and then boldly proclaim God’s word.
A while back I had an email discussion with a good friend of mine over this issue. Mike serves as pastor of a sister church in a neighboring city. We both claim to have a high view of scripture, call ourselves inerrantists, and associate with the conservative resurgence of the Southern Baptist Convention. Like iron sharpening iron, friends ought to reprove, rebuke, and exhort one another for the building up of the body of Christ. Mike and I do that. Sometimes I’m probably a little harsher than I ought to be when discussing via email. I’m much more of a wimp face to face, especially when Mike picks up the lunch tab. I’m treating for sushi next time. Mike gave me permission to post a couple of our most heated discussions.
A 21 year old named Malachi raised an issue about something that happened in their TeamKid. He said the teacher read Revelation 3:20 to the kids, and urged them to invite Jesus into their hearts. To make it more kid friendly, they set up a baseball diamond. Kid’s with questions were told to stand on first base and work their way around the bases. Home plate was asking Jesus into your heart and salvation. Malachi was rightly troubled with this and asked us what we thought. That topic kicked things off, but very quickly changed to a discussion over our right to make a text mean something that it never meant. Here is my original response, followed by our dialogue.
Malachi,
That sounds very troubling to me on multiple levels. Let me just give a brief responce.
First, its an inappropriate use of Revelation 3:20. The passage is not about Jesus knocking at a sinners heart door begging to come in. Its a picture of the church. The self-sufficient pride of the Church has edged Christ out of its fellowship.
Second, I am beginning to loath, more and more, manipulative evangelistic tactics, especially when used with children.
Third, I do not know what to think about the whole first base, second base, third base business. It makes me think of Billy Sunday shouting, “Come make a home run for Jesus!”
Fourth, Tactics such as this seem to endorse the false doctrine of decisional regeneration. Even if we went with your analogy of stealing bases, that makes the picture of free-Grace even more skewed.
Well, I better stop there before someone starts accusing me of just being cranky. 
by grace alone,
Don A. Elbourne Jr.
Don,
Not “Cranky” but definitely tending to fall into the trap of thinking God cannot use those who do things in differently. While Rev. 3:20 definitely speaks first to the church, I think we might also see Christ knocking at our heart’s door.
Are we to think that all of us who came to Christ through the use of that verse were not actually saved? Other than John 3:16, that is probably the verse which stands out most in my memory of my salvation. God seemed to say He wanted me. Am I wrong? Was that Baptist Pastor wrong for sharing that verse with me at time when my heart was tender, and I was under conviction? I shall always appreciate the use of that verse.
I also understand that 1 John 1:9 speaks primarily to the church, but it also speaks to the unbeliever. Let’s not get so intellectually accurate that we miss the supernatural intervention of God.
I’m told that some men repented when George Whitfield just said “Mesopotamia”. People confessed their sin and repented when George W. Truett walked into the room.
While I want to be “true” to the text, I think we need be careful lest we think that God doesn’t use those things which are not as exegetically accurate as we would like. Dr. Leroy Benefield, my preaching professor at BBI, loved to tell how he was saved when a man preached on tithing. He said the man gave an invitation designed to get Christians to tithe, and really didn’t issue a salvation invitation, but he was convicted of his lostness and came to Christ.
Folks, so many of the New Testament interpretations of OT Scripture seem to have little to do with the context of the message, but I believe the NT writers were using it in accordance with God’s leadership.
Mike
Mike,
You are actually condoning the misuse of scripture? How in the world can you say you believe in the authority of scripture and yet treat it so flippantly? Unbelievable.
I agree, God is gracious and sometimes works through our imperfections, but to use that as an excuse for our mishandling of the Word of God is disgraceful.
Think about what you just wrote. If the text meant one thing, we can not rip it from its context and use it to preach something else. Achieving desirable results do not justify eisegesis. If we hold a high view of scripture, we can not use pragmatism as our governing hermeneutical methodology.
Unless you are ready to side with Anthony Sizemore when he said, “the Bible is just a book,” then you may want to reconsider your position.
by grace alone,
Don A. Elbourne Jr.
Don, I believe the Bible to be the inerrant and infallible Word of God. However, I don’t accept the idea that you or any professor I’ve ever met has the last Word on God’s Word. I’ve never met a professor who would have used the Joel passage in the way Peter did. Yes, we must be true to Scripture, but while there is only one primary teaching, there are many ancillary teachings.
I listen to learned men who try to strain and explain passages, but they are simply trying reconcile New Testament commentary on OT passages where they don’t really see the connection.
I have read a particular passage and upon re-reading, I’ve found something entirely new to my understanding.
It is like the passage in Isaiah about the King of Tyre. Many exegete that passage to say it refers to Satan, and gives a description of him and his being expelled from heaven. Now, I agree that one might see that in the passage. But it is a direct warning to the people of that day, and addressed to a particular king.
I personally take the most literal view possible, but I know that it is easy to miss something.
I believe the Bible. I trust the KJV. I really don’t trust these latter day “syntax scholars”. I think much learning hath made many dumb. I don’t oppose learning. I advocate it. However, intellectual acumen, substituted for spiritual insight is a poor trade off.
Call me what you will!!!! But I really find myself asking just how much some professors trust God, rather than their own intellectual prowess.
Mike
Mike,
Your contradictory affirmations defy logical sense. On the one hand you give lip service to the authority of scripture. Yet at the same time you insist on giving yourself the freedom to inject your own alien meaning into the text. That hermeneutical methodology places you right at home with the extreme left wing of the CBF. You can not make the Bible mean whatever you want it to mean.
The Bible uses words. Those words have meaning. The context gives us interpretive boundaries to understand that meaning. Any “ancillary teachings” (as you call them) must flow from the text itself. Eisegesis, even when labeled “spiritual insight” is still eisegesis. When we start injecting scripture with our own meaning, we are doing violence to God’s Word and have, in practice, denied the authority of scripture.
Every time we deal with a passage of scripture you demean my seminary education as if a passion to “rightly divide the word of truth” is a bad thing. I’ll be the first to admit that I do not have a corner on correct interpretation of difficult passages. I never said I had the last word on God’s word. I agree that while scripture stands infallible, there are no infallible interpreters. But that is not the issue. You seem to be rejecting the existence of correct interpretation all together. In doing so, you have drifted into post-modernism. If there is no correct interpretation, then there is no incorrect interpretation and absolute truth goes out the window.
In the past you have pooh-poohed any attempt at correctly interpreting a difficult passage. This time we are not dealing with a difficult passage. It does not take a seminary graduate, bible scholar or syntactic expert to read the plain meaning of scripture in Revelation 3:14-22. My 7th grade daughter could tell you that it is addressed to the church and not to a lost individual. All she would have to do is read the text.
14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write…
22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
I do not have any secret knowledge hidden away in the seminary library that no one else has access to. It is right there in your KJV. To paint Jesus as a poor pitiful homeless person standing at the sinners heart door begging to come in is a clear twisting of scripture. The distorted image may move people down the sawdust trail, but it doesn’t justify pragmatic eisegetical hermeneutics and the mishandling of God’s word.
by grace alone,
Don A. Elbourne Jr.
As I walked through the wilderness of this world, I lighted on a certain place, where was a den; and I laid me down in that place to sleep: and as I slept, I dreamed a dream. I dreamed, and, behold, “I saw a man clothed with rags, standing in a certain place, with his face from his own house, a book in his hand, and a great burden upon his back,” (Isa. 64:6; Luke 14:33; Psa. 38:4; Hab. 2:2; Acts 16:31). I looked, and saw him open the book, and read therein; and as he read, he wept and trembled; and not being able longer to contain, he brake out with a lamentable cry, saying, “What shall I do?” (Acts 2:37).
In this plight, therefore, he went home, and refrained himself as long as he could, that his wife and children should not perceive his distress; but he could not be silent long, because that his trouble increased. Wherefore at length he brake his mind to his wife and children; and thus he began to talk to them: “O my dear wife,” said he, “and you, the children of my bowels, I, your dear friend, am in myself undone, by reason of a burden that lieth hard upon me; moreover, I am for certain informed that this our city will be burned with fire from Heaven; in which fearful overthrow, both myself, with thee, my wife, and you, my sweet babes, shall miserably come to ruin, except (the which yet I see not) some way of escape can be found, whereby we may be delivered.” At this, his relations were sore amazed; not for that they believed that what he had said to them was true, but because they thought that some frenzy distemper had got into his head; therefore, it drawing towards night, and they hoping that sleep might settle his brains, with all haste they got him to bed. But the night was as troublesome to him as the day; wherefore, instead of sleeping, he spent it in sighs and tears. So when the morning was come, they would know how he did; he told them, worse and worse; he also set to talking to them again, but they began to be hardened. They also thought to drive away his distemper by harsh and surly carriages to him. Sometimes they would deride, sometimes they would chide, and sometimes they would quite neglect him. Wherefore he began to retire himself to his chamber to pray for, and pity them, and also to condole his own misery. He would also walk solitarily in the fields, sometimes reading, and sometimes praying; and thus for some days he spent his time.
Now I saw upon a time, when he was walking in the fields, that he was, as he was wont, reading in his book, and greatly distressed in his mind; and as he read, he burst out, as he had done before, crying, “What shall I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30, 31).
I saw also that he looked this way and that way, as if he would run; yet he stood still, because, as I perceived, he could not tell which way to go. I looked then, and saw a man named Evangelist coming to him, who asked, “Where fore dost thou cry?”
He answered, Sir, I perceive, by the book in my hand, that I am condemned to die, and after that to come to judgment, (Heb. 9:27); and I find that I am not willing (Job 16:21, 22) to do the first, nor able (Eze. 22:14) to do the second.
Then said Evangelist, Why not willing to die, since this life is attended with so many evils? The man answered, Because I fear that this burden that is upon my back will sink me lower than the grave; and I shall fall into Tophet (Isa. 30:33). And, Sir, if I be not fit to go to prison, I am not fit, I am sure, to go to judgment, and from thence to execution; and the thoughts of these things make me cry.
Then said Evangelist, If this be thy condition, why standest thou still? He answered, Because I know not whither to go. Then he gave him a parchment roll, and there was written within, “Fly from the wrath to come” (Matt. 3:7).
The man therefore, read it, and looking upon Evangelist very carefully, said, Whither must I fly? Then said Evangelist, pointing with his finger over a very wide field, Do you see yonder wicket gate? (Matt. 7:13). The man said, No. Then said the other, Do you see yonder shining light? (Psa. 119:105; 2 Peter 1:19). He said, I think I do. Then said Evangelist, Keep that light in your eye, and go up directly thereto, so shalt thou see the gate; at which, when thou knockest, it shall be told thee what thou shalt do. So I saw in my dream that the man began to run. Now, he had not ran far from his own door, but his wife and children perceiving it, began to cry after him to return (Luke 14:26); but the man put his fingers in his ears, and ran on, crying, Life! life! Eternal life ! So he looked not behind him (Gen. 19:17), but fled towards the middle of the plain.
- from “The Pilgrim’s Progress; In The Similitude of A Dream” by John Bunyan John Bunyan
While the Supreme Court debates whether or not to allow the Ten Commandments and other religious displays on public property, let us not forget our freedom to display them on private property, discuss them over coffee, and proclaim them from our pulpits.
Moses recorded the law of God in Exodus 20:1-20.
And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
- “You shall have no other gods before me.
- “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
- “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
- “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
- “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
- “You shall not murder.
- “You shall not commit adultery.
- “You shall not steal.
- “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
- “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”
Now when all the people saw the thunder and the flashes of lightning and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, the people were afraid and trembled, and they stood far off and said to Moses, “You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, lest we die.” Moses said to the people, “Do not fear, for God has come to test you, that the fear of him may be before you, that you may not sin.”
How do you measure up? If you use the Ten Commandments as a check list to grade your moral standing before God, would you pass? Have you ever taken something that did not belong to you? Have you ever been less than totally truthful? Have you ever taken God’s name in vain? Have you ever relegated God to second, third, or fourth place in your life? Don’t forget that Jesus takes into consideration more than just our actions, but also the attitudes of the heart. He said that if we lust in our minds, we have already broken the seventh commandment (Matthew 5:27-28). Harboring hatred makes us guilty of number six, in the eyes of God (1John 3:15). Take a moment to evaluate yourself in light of the Ten Commandments. Even if we feel we have done fairly well most of the time, the bible reminds us that breaking one of God’s holy commands brings down an avalanche of guilt for them all (James 2:10).
Through our willful infractions of God’s law we incur a guilt that separates us eternally from our creator. “In His presence there is fullness of joy; at His right hand are pleasures forevermore,” (Psalm 16:11), but our sin stands like a great barrier keeping us from Him (Ezekiel 18:4, Revelation 21:8). If you desire to enjoy an all satisfying relationship with the glorious God of the universe and avert the crashing wrath of His judgement that you rightly deserve, only one solution exists. Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) Run to Christ! Throw yourself on His mercy with the assurance that He will receive you as His own (John 6:37). Even if you have horribly broken all ten of God’s commandments and you find yourself in the path of God’s torrent of justice, He provides a way of escape through Christ. He died on the cross to pay the penalty of sin and hung as a substitute for all those who look to Him in faith (Romans 5:1-2, Ephesians 2:4-10).
