Posted by Yong TM (202.172.43.132) on February 13, 2003 at 13:30:06:
In Reply to: Re: How to read the bible? posted by sy on February 12, 2003 at 20:05:24:
These are difficult questions. The key reason why there are so many denominations and sects would precisely be in the differences in interpretation. This site is an advocate of the theological position based on the reformed faith. The opinions expressed here however, are not universally accepted, hence different behaviours result.
The charismatics for example, would claim that biblical references relating to signs and wonders are not historical but for all eternity. Ultra-Conservatives will say that all signs and wonders have ceased (the Cessation theory), and are marks of the early apostles to establish the church. So these differences gave rise to different church movement and interpretations.
I shall not therefore pretend that I have the solution. But there are some pointers I can share:
1. All scripture is historical. There is no escape from the fact that the Bible is made up of books, letters, poems, chronicles, etc. This is very different from other faith, which typically claim that some holy men discover a book out from nowhere, or God moved someone to do nothing but write down His commandments. Therein lies the difficulty. We have problems reconciling this aspect of the Bible, because it is much easier to simply say that God asked ABC to write down line by line what He wants us to know. In reformed understanding, the authors of the scripture are inspired by the Holy Spirit to reveal God's will to us through their writings. God did not stop them from displaying their cultural traits (hence it is possible to detect the writing style of each author), nor the reflection of historical facts (hence the Bible can be used for historical reference). Our faith is in that the Holy Spirit preserved and ensured that the Bible is still inerrant, and still wholly what God wants us to know specifically about His plan for salvation and life.
Therefore, one must always understand the historical and cultural context of scripture, in order to get the correct picture. A Bible study (for that matter, a sermon) is actually not complete without an introduction to background and context.
2. Having said that, we need to remember not to fall into the mistakes of the liberals, who looked at everything purely from a historical and human context, and have no faith in God's provision in scripture. It is a classic man-centred versus God-centred approach to scripture. We should recognise the historical and cultural context of scripture, and yet still place faith in God speaking to us through scripture for all time. Therefore, literal interpretation of a verse must be done in light of the entire scripture, and with the historical context in mind as well.
3. Among all teachings and writings, there is a special place for the direct words of Jesus Christ. Dr Tong does believe that the words of the WORD incarnate hold special place. While having a discussion with him, Dr Tong asked if the words of Satan recorded in the Bible are the WORD of God as well (you can imagine the type of discussions we have... ha ha)? The answer illustrate the fact that words of scripture do have different status. So clearly words of Christ are mainly non-contextual in nature (then again, some would argue that words of Christ were recorded by the gospel writers, each of whom was dictated by their context).
4. After bearing all the above points, it would then be possible to understand which portion of scripture is historical, which are not. Differences in opinion here would give rise to denominational differences. For example, Presbyterians believe that God ordained women as spiritual leaders, citing biblical examples of prophetess and women judges. Presbyterians also believe that passages in 1 Timothy or 1 Corinthians that seem to forbid women to preach or lead are essentially historical and cultural in context. Others disagree; hence Presbyterianism is one of the few denominations with female ministers (something that Dr Tong disagree with). Such disagreements are quite understandable, because the theological arguments are strong on both sides.
What is not understandable is the swing we are observing nowadays to complete, nonsensical interpretation of scripture without regard whatsoever to context. The craze over the prayer of Jabez (1 Chron 4: 9,10) would be an excellent example. This Jabez character is essentially a nobody; there is no indication whatsoever that his prayer had any theological significance, especially in light of his background (which essentially we have zero knowledge). But with 2 verses and nothing else, millions of books were sold and millions practices this 'prayer' (including some Presbyterian ministers I know!). This behaviour is classis out-of-context use of scripture, behaving as if every word of Scripture is some magic formula.
It is important therefore, for one to aspire to study scripture well, especially church leaders, so as not to mislead others.
I have another thing to add. While we have proclaimed always that scripture is inerrant and the final authority, I have been thinking about the elements of objective truth lately (may aspire to write a thesis on this later). Whatever interpretation there is, my ultimate question is whether it is true or not. Our usual answer is that scripture is truth. I fully affirm that. But I do also believe that there must be an area of truth that should be considered, that of objective truth.
By objective truth, I mean the truth that is statistical, plain, or if you like, scientific. It falls into the category of black being black, white being white. I believe truth is truth is truth, and no amount of arguments can mask certain facts. For example, if you say that a new car model is safe, there is objective statistical evidence to show that. As a trained engineer, I would not accept a tolerance that is out of the specified range. In such matter, there is no need to argue.
But strangely in church, objective truth seems to have no place. For example, when a person claim to have a gift for healing, no one quite dare to question him as to whether the claim is true; since it is from 'God'... or when a church proclaims a 'miracle', people claim answers to prayers, prosperity, health and wealth, success, etc. because of their faith in Jesus Christ, no one does any verification of the truth.
But that cannot be. It seems strange to me that we will not accept the car salesmen's claim of car safety without verifying; yet we accept all sorts of claims of church members and leaders without questioning.
In relevance to your question, if a church claims that proclamations of signs and wonders are NOT historical but for all ages, I want to know if that is objectively true. When they claim healings, miracles, wonders, whatever, I want to know why after so many decades of signs and wonders (since the late 70s), our hospitals do not naturally have a 'Signs and Wonders' wing, and still spend millions of dollars combating cancer? If there is no objective evidence, it would seem to me that those claims cannot be substantiated, and so the idea that signs and wonders is an age-less proclamation could not stand. So this too, I believe, is another tool to measure validity.