Is This Really the Issue?
Friends,
I’m commenting on this because it was posted by Lane Chaplin at SOL. Note this quote from near the end: “A single accurate and correct interpretation of every verse and passage in Scripture.” According to who? Did you ever notice how Paul and James use the exact same passage of Scripture and interpret it two different ways–one to support faith and the other to support works? (Concerning Abraham.) Jesus seemed to think differently on matters of interpretation too: You have heard it said, but I say unto you.
I’m not really sure what to make of this. I’m not sure who the narrator is. I’m not even sure who Lane Chaplin is. I’m not sure what the video is trying to say. But is the ADM crowd really the Elijah and those who oppose them really the Ahab? Oh, really?
You know, from where I sit, Truth here is not as much the issue as this video clip makes it out to be. From where I sit, the issue is not those who ‘take a stand for biblical truth’ being opposed by others. Certainly, no one here is opposed to truth. I’ll bet if you asked, you would find that hardly any one on the planet is opposed to the truth. Is the work of the ADM crowd really comparable to the work of Luther? Is this video really cursing ‘us’? I hardly think that ‘we’ are Ahab; I doubt even more that ‘they’ are Elijah.
Who decided what the ‘rules for interpretation’ are? Aren’t they all arbitrary? ‘Rightly interpret Scripture.’ In college, I learned to interpret Scripture by reading a book by Louis Berkhof of Calvin College. Well, as I have gotten older, more learned, I cannot think of a worse way to interpret Scripture than in the manner which a good Calvinist might. And what about the Left Behind stuff? That way of interpreting Scripture might be as bad as the Calvinist/Reformed way. Even Martin Luther, whom this fellow holds up for his wisdom in such matters, was hardly a bastion of biblical wisdom and orthodoxy. I recall that he rejected the letter of James outright, held over much of his Catholicism, and was at least a closet anti-Semite if not an overt one. The point is that everyone has an interpretation; but those who interpret also have the Holy Spirit: Does the Holy Spirit lead people into un-truth?
‘Those who create their own, personal, inaccurate interpretations of the rules are the ones that are causing the problems.’ ‘Untrained pastors.’ Oh, this is really too much. I don’t care what anyone says: After studying Scripture on a daily basis and preaching it regularly since 1994–not long, I grant–but I can safely say: All Interpretation, no matter how much one adheres to the ‘rules of interpretation,’ is a matter of personal interpretation. And, to be sure, application of said interpretation is something else entirely. I can pull 10 commentaries off my shelf on the book of Matthew alone. I guarantee you that no two of them will be exactly the same at every point. (A good book on this is Eat This Book, by Eugene Peterson.) And I read the commentaries of people that they would hold up as orthodox. There’s disagreement all over the place–that’s why so many commentary series’ are written in the first place and why every teacher who writes one takes the first several pages to justify the publication of a new one when so many others already exist. If there was no room for correction and rebuke and accountability there would be only one set of commentaries in existence.
Look, the issue here is not a matter of truth, or the rules of interpretation, or untrained pastors. No one is saying truth doesn’t matter. No one is saying the rules of interpretation don’t matter. No one is saying the Bible doesn’t matter. What we are saying is something closer akin to: Mind your own business because each servant will stand or fall to his own master. Or maybe we are saying: It’s one thing to disagree with an idea and it is something else entirely to destroy a person’s reputation or work. It’s one thing entirely to have a theological issue with someone; it’s something altogether different to cast them as an anti-christ, heretic, or an unbeliever. Maybe, just maybe, God is big enough to handle the fact that Scripture is ambiguous enough at points to allow so much variation in interpretation. To be sure, there probably is a line that should not be crossed, but who decides that line?
And, finally, for the fella in the video to suggest, however implicitly, that somehow or other he or ‘those he speaks for’ have the corner on the ‘one, correct and accurate interpretation of Scripture’ is, in my opinion, the height of arrogance. To the dude in the video: Get a grip.
jerry
October 3rd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Martin Luther was a flaming anti-semite. But I love his quote they use about away with any love that promotes unity, supposedly on the basis of any doctrine. And here is the kicker -
The speaker constructs a premise that all doctines are essential.
Look around the ODM world and you will not only see differences in infant baptism, eschatology, sacraments, presdestination, and a long list of other doctrines. But what is also strickingly hypocritical, they will overlook baptismal regeneration, transubstantiation, and other redemptive doctrines for their own unity.
Many times their unity is held together by the glue of hatred for others as well as the cement of self righteousness.
October 3rd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Didn’t take long to leap on this one.
” Did you ever notice how Paul and James use the exact same passage of Scripture and interpret it two different ways–one to support faith and the other to support works? (Concerning Abraham.) Jesus seemed to think differently on matters of interpretation too: You have heard it said, but I say unto you.”
This is proof that you are the new magesterium. This has been used by Rome to try and contradict reformation teaching for centuries. Paul and James, Jesus and Abraham,none are contradictory to each other. The Scriptures are perfect.
Please, I am waiting for iggy or whomever to throw up their arguments that “prove” the scriptures are flawed.
Anyway read James 2 in light of Eph 2:8-10 and you will have no problem understanding works. Well then again, maybe you will.
The commentaries are not the Word, especially the “talmudic twaddle” that is promoted here.
Neither Gamaliel nor Hillel wrote scripture.
Yes each servant stands or falls before the Lord. The question is; who is a real servant?
When it comes to the non-believer or the brand new ones, I have no expectation of them knowing a lot about scripture,….yet.
When it comes to the self professed defenders of the demagogues in the emerging/ mega church, world who are claiming to be “teachers” . All of you are fair game and so is your doctrine.
If Jesus thought like you “nice guys”, as you claim He did, then He would have never rebuked the pharisees.
BTW
The height of arrogance is to call the Bible ambiguous.
October 3rd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
At the risk of nit-picking, did I not see theater type seating masked with a common back to look like conventional pews?
Also, there were so many seats that it looked like it could have been one of those hell-spawned megachurches.
I also noticed a professional studio camera in the theater, which can only mean they might have those devlish projection screens and p-p-p-PowerPoint!
Did you happen to notice the deception of the narrator speaking in this cavernous sanctuary, and then cut to appear talking as he’s walking out of some small quaint church that seems tucked away in a small folksy town?
As for the speaker, what was he doing in a church wearing a shirt that had no collar? And I believe, upon closer inspection, one could see the suggestion of pectorals and semi-erect nipples. This man has no modesty; he is a temptation to wives and teenage girls!
Lastly, what is he doing speaking on a basketball court? Overly-masculine women play basketball, as do hairy-legged men, all displaying a lack of modesty. It could lead to dancing and fanny-shaking.
Wow, I was so busy tearing apart so many things that don’t matter, that I couldn’t tell if he actually had a point to make.
Just kidding. Seems a little self-serving. The video, I mean.
October 3rd, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I’m curious. How does this answer the claim? If they were taking stands for doctrine and not for fixing broken wings so it can fly away…
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
This is one of the moments that I’m sad about the easy access to technology…
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I’d like to say that denominations, in and of themselves, are not necessarily a bad thing.
It seems like this guy would want us all to go to some a-historical, protestant, “bible church”.
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
“universally accepted standards of interpretation”?
how can he say that when he’s from a tradition that for the past 150 years has, for ideological reasons, rejected biblical scholarship, etc.?
How can you criticize those centers of thinking/theology when you don’t know anything about the actual things being taught there anymore?
does this guy know that Harvard Divinity has started the process to have a Chair of Evangelical theology?
ai yi yi…
earnest, sincere, “plain spoken” doesn’t mean you get a pass when you’re just plain wrong.
ick
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Nathan,
Do you know who the guy in the video is?
jerry
October 4th, 2008 at 5:59 am
I believe demoninations are almost always counter-productive. They set up barriers, they elicit creeds which usually cannot grow, they sometimes bring pride, they grow bloated administraitive structures, and people are sometimes content with being known as Lutheran or Baptist or whatever sintead of just being a Christian and a follower of Jesus Christ.
Most churches have their denomination in the title (1st Baptist, etc.) and do not even mention the Lord Jesus Christ in their name. Cooperation sure - denomination maybe not. Most denominations are known by their doctrinal distinctives and not their dramtatic and sacrificial discipleship to Jesus Christ.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Well I got 3 minutes into the video and realized that we have a serious case of eisegesis. He mean he actually says “It’s implied…” and then goes on to make his case.
“When we interpret the bible its truth”.
“When you interpret the bible its turning to the prophets of Baal”. At least that’s what was ‘implied’
One other small detail. Is that a salmon colored shirt I see?
October 4th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Implied means an absolute certitude. That, my friend, is orthodoxy.
October 4th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Jerry. I absolutely agree. We also see through a glass darkly. I think most of us hold to the concept that the Word of God is the Truth. It is evident, however, that a certain segment of Christiandom holds they, and only they have interpreted it properly.
October 4th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Chris P. I am sympathetic in some degree with many of your comments, but think you are way off on this one. You have not addressed or even tried to answer the “elephant in the room” of the HUGE doctrical differences/interpretations among the various ODMs. You hold to the (almost Platonic) IDEAL of Scripture as Truth, which most here agree it is, but you totally turn a blind eye to the undeniable fact that many of the key ODM players hold SIGNIFICANT differences in interpretation of many Scriptures. You have got to incorporate this significant fact into your world view or your view becomes irrelevant as it completely ignores reality.
October 4th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Chris P.,
You are a sad, sad human being. You wrote:
“This is proof that you are the new magesterium. This has been used by Rome to try and contradict reformation teaching for centuries. Paul and James, Jesus and Abraham,none are contradictory to each other. The Scriptures are perfect.”
Where, oh where, did I suggest that Paul and James contradicted one another? I said, specifically, that they both used the same passage to make different points. That is hardly suggesting that they contradicted one another.
I don’t know what the ‘old magisterium’ is, so I don’t think I am or can be a part of the new one.
Then, you wrote: “Yes each servant stands or falls before the Lord. The question is; who is a real servant?”
No, that is not the point of that passage. The point of that passage is that the servant stands to HIS OWN MASTER and that the other servants, servants all BTW, have no right to pass judgment on that servant–since, BTW, they are ALL servants. I think the point is that the Master is well enough aware who is and is not his servant. And He, the Master, is able to make him stand. In fact: He will stand.
The height of arrogance is your pathetic belief that you know the Scripture well enough to suggest that it is not ambiguous at points. I would be willing to bet that you and I could, for example, have a conversation about the Lord’s Supper or Baptism and each of us would have different arguments concerning each of those. And both ideas would be perfectly orthodox and biblical. That strikes me as ambiguous. We could have the same discussion about Elders or Musical instruments or denominations or bishops or smoking cigarettes and drinking wine.
jerry
October 4th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Friends,
Concerning this video, the headline at SOL reads: “People Like Ingrid are Just Troublemakers in the Body.”
The headline at CR?N reads: “People like CRN Are just Troublemakers in the Body.”
The headline at Apprising Ministries is: “Ken Silva is Just a Troublemaker in the Church.”
Finally, we all agree on something.
jerry
October 4th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
DEFINITIONS OF UNITY
1.We agree on the essentials.
2. We “say” agree on everything.
3. We have a common enemy
I love the bewidering suggestion that there are no essentials. So the Incarnation is on the same level as the mode of baptism?
October 4th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
My video says “Jerry is a Troublemaker for Everyone!”. I believe mine is the original.
October 4th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
I know yall won’t agree but
If you preach truth from the Word of God, you will create trouble at some level in the church.
For example, if I were to preach just the text of Romans 1:18-32 in some churches, I would be labeled as a homophobic bigot. And that is just reading the word!
I think the point has really been missed: Many in this generation simply do not trust God’s Word as being authoratative and the sole rule for Christian living! Pastors, teachers, and well meaning folks want to soften it up way too much.
October 4th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Nay Chris, what ’tis arrogant is to ignore the varied history of biblical interpretation, to claim that it is simply to understand the Bible, to say “My way is right and everyone else is wrong.”
Admitting what you find difficult is humility.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Some soften it for sure… other’s take way to much joy in beating people up with it as well.
Many in “this” generation do not trust God’s Word because they do not trust truth claims… but many also do not trust it because they have seen how previous generations twisted it to fit their own agendas.
Neil
October 4th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
OR, most DO trust in God’s word as being authoritative and teh sole rule for Christian living but they read it in a far different way than some of our more fundamentalist friends.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I wonder what version/translation of the Scriptures they used?
Fundamentally, I agree with him that the goal should be accurate, definitive, and proper interpretation of Scripture. I’d even go so far as to agree that we should strive to determine what the original author had in mind as the meaning and application.
Problem is, as we see by how it was used by the air-chair-discerners, it’s far to easy for someone to see this and immediately insert themselves in the role of Elijah.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
OK, things I didn’t follow:
How can he speak of “universally accepted” methods of interpretation? Is it not his that there are too many methods?
How is it that the culture created the scenario where there are so many interpretations? Does he think there was ever a time, or culture, that did not have an abundance of interpretations? has he ever heard of the French Revolution?
Don’t we all have our personal opinions of what God’s message is for the world?
I don’t think the problem lies with those who think there is not one single interpretation for each passage of Scripture… Does the problem not lie with those who think they have got it all figures out?
October 4th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Two other thoughts… whenever I preach I am careful to say “…this is what I believe the Word to be telling us.” Lest I put words into the mouth of God that he’s rather not have said.
When I listen to a colleague preach, I’d much rather hear him say “This is what I believe this passage to be saying…” than to imply he has a corner on the interpretative market.
October 4th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Just because people think you’re wrong when you interpret scripture doesn’t mean they reject scripture. At some point you’ll either have to accept that, or claim only the 5 people who agree with you are part of the kingdom of God.
October 4th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Jerry,
I don’t know who the guy in the vid is…why?
sorry, I posted as “nathan”…just got absent minded.
didn’t mean to create confusion with any other “Nathans”.
October 4th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
5??!! Come on now, Bo. Jesus said narrow is the gate and few will enter. 5 constitutes a majority in some circles. Let us not be too generous with God’s grace, ok?
October 4th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
nc,
I’m just curious that’s all, you know, like to put a name with the face…he sounds familiar but I just can’t place it…
jerry
October 4th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Jerry,
that’s cool.
He doesn’t look familiar to me…but I guess that doesn’t really mean anything.
October 4th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Did you notice, on the SoL posting of this they have given the video two tags; “Persecution” and “Purpose Driven Madness.”
First off, what does this have to do with Purpose Driven anything? And second, are they really claiming they are being persecuted for proclaiming truth?
October 5th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Since Chris Lyons continues to ban comments I want to say that the post by Joe C. about being fit was extrordinary. Thank you, Joe, you are a blessing!
October 5th, 2008 at 8:44 am
The dude in the video is Lane Chapin.
October 5th, 2008 at 8:55 am
I beg to differ.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:11 am
The dude in the video is Donny Osmond.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Concerning interpretation the arrogance/pride/stupidity of humanity (in the church) thinking that we can by our human effort perfectly interpret what was written thousands of years ago by and to a culture so very different from our own. We even disagree on interpretation of works being written currently. Books written by and to a culture we know very well. Take for example the storm around “The Shack”. My wife got given it and I decided to read it first because of all the noise that was being made about it by the ODM’s. I must say that I cannot see the same interpretations most people have about what the book says. Now I do not claim to get 100% what “The Shack” is all about or getting it any better than anyone else. We just get different things from it. Is that not ok? Now extend that to a book, actually 66 books written over 1000’s of years by a wide range of people 1000’s of years ago… In order to even starting to understand or interpret it we need
- help from the One who inspired it
- humility to recognise we may not have it right
- conversation with fellow believers in who the Spirit dwells and speak through
- quite a bit more…
I cannot claim to have the perfect interpretation of any part of Scripture. I can only trust the Holy Spirit to use what I already know to change me, bring me in closer relationship to God and to communicate God’s perfect Truth through my imperfect interpretation and very imperfect communication skills. It really is all about God. Who is building the church anyway?
October 5th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Reading my posted comment I realise that I were writing in English while thinking in Afrikaans. Sorry about all the grammatical errors. If any interpretation is needed please don’t ask Chris P
October 5th, 2008 at 11:23 am
For years I struggled with uncertainty about some Scripture interpretation. Finally, just last Wednesday, I finished my complete and inerrant interpretation of all 66 books. I wanted to share it, but let everyone do their own homework.
October 5th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Now the question remains: Will anybody be able to make an inerrant intersetation of Rick Frueh’s inerrant interpretation?
October 5th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Intersetation?
interpretation was the intended word!
October 5th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Eugene,
I can’t interpret a word your saying
October 5th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
ummm…I have to ask the question that always comes up for me:
If it is Lane Chapin…
Who is Lane Chapin? Why should I care what he thinks or says?
Here’s my standing invite to him and the other self-important imams like Friel, Camp, etc. etc. to feel free to peddle their whiny, cut and paste, sunday school party line doo-doo elsewhere.
We’re all full up on crazy here.
(Maybe they can all be given some acreage in the North Dakota region of “Jesus Land” with a high fence around with no technology.)
If there’s anybody who needs to breathe deep and get a stiff drink it’s them.
October 5th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
nc,
For the last time, they speak for God. Argument over.
October 5th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
oh, yeah…
I forgot.
thanks for reminding me, Joe C.
October 5th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I’m just glad the video had the person doing the Scripture reading speak in an English accent - just like the ancient Jews…
The point is that many people have equated their opinion as Scripture, and people are getting sick of it. I’ve seen so many legalists try to enforce their petty little rules for so long, that actually think they’re the same as Scripture.
October 5th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Many of us in my former Independent Baptist realm would have considered Ingrid’s church way too sacramental, ceremonial, and without much soul winning effort. Add to that the supposed wine drinking, and the outspoken mouthiness of their women folk, we absolutely would considered her church liberal and could not feelowship with them.
Ya know what, I haven’t changed much!