How do I interpret the Bible? As I set out to answer this I am mindful of the attitude of Lewis toward mere Christianity, or essential Christianity. What is germane to what we believe as Christians? Therefore I will seek to answer this question so that it will fit with most Christians, yet will challenge most to also look at their Bibles a bit differently. My hope is to get us as saints to look a little closer as to what God is actually trying to tell us. I have long pointed out to my friends in theological discussions, that it matters not at all what we believe. It matters only what God is saying. If I develop a creed that says angels are the stars in heaven, I may believe my creed very sincerely, but that, of course, does not make it true. The measure of any doctrine or theology must be against the ruler of the Bible. Not even our historical fathers can measure doctrine or theology for us; it is through the lens of scripture that doctrine must rise or fall. Most saints, from very different creedal backgrounds, would probably agree with me so far. Why is it that we have so many different views? I do not want to attack your view, or embellish mine; instead I want to propose to you that maybe, just maybe, we need to start from the Bible in a fresh way. I think the problem of Christians is partly that there are so many viewpoints out there, that sometimes we feel that we are at a “doctrinal smorgasbord”, where all we have to do is simply pick the doctrine that we want to believe. I remember the very able professor at Biola that taught me Revelation some thirty years ago. He ably taught Revelation by presenting the different views of the different schools of interpretation. He would tell us that this is what the literal, or the verbal plenary crowd believes, this is what the amillennialist believes, and this is what the post-millennialist believes, and this is what the early church believed. In that way, he approached the class, and was able to present a notoriously difficult book to a divergent class. If I were teaching the class, I could conceive of no better way to do it. The problem was that sometimes I did feel like I was being given the opportunity to indulge in the doctrinal smorgasbord—to pick and choose what I wanted to believe. I think that position becomes second nature to us, especially as we begin to grow and learn the Bible, and develop a thinking framework around it. As I reflected on this way of learning, it became apparent to me that there is a large hole in it, big enough, as they say, to drive a Mack truck through. Do you see it yet? I was leaving God out in my reckoning. Oh, you say, no you weren’t, for all of the views have men of God in them. But logically, that is an irrational statement. Do you not see it, as soon as you say it? If the Bible says anything at all (and I think it says quite a lot), then it must say only one thing. There is not room for two opposing, or even divergent viewpoints. If there is truth, as I think myself confident in supposing Christians to maintain, then there is no more room for two truths than there are twenty truths. Unescapably, we must be driven to one. So then, the question should become different from choosing which view to believe. Should not the question be driven from the Bible, rather than, as I think happens too often, we get the creed, and then we prove it from the Bible. If God is in our reckoning, then are we willing to lay our pet doctrine at his feet, and say, surely you know, O God. I should think some of our doctrinal differences would diminish sharply, and in some cases, disappear altogether. I am not saying, here, that we all think alike, nor should we. The beautiful tapestry of the different people that God makes to be his church, ought to be able to maintain those differences. What I am saying is quite different, and let me see if I can sharpen it a bit for you through an analogy. I am a teacher, but also I do computer troubleshooting at my school, for many years now. Troubleshooting is very easy though it appears as magic or a bit of wizardry to those who do not do it. The problems of computers are many, and undoubtedly you can think of many problems where you had difficulty finding your way through them, but the list of solutions is relatively small and fairly common to troubleshooting, not magical at all. I have found it remarkable that I can go through this list verbally with a teacher, asking: 1) Is it plugged in? 2) Have you checked the light on the surge protector? And then two or three more questions, as the case may demand. But it is the first two questions that I find so remarkable, because it is rare that a fellow teacher will admit that it is not plugged in or that the surge protector has not gotten turned off. Yet, when I make the inevitable trip to the computer, much of the time that is exactly the problem. In a similar fashion, our doctrinal creeds are always plugged in—that is, we say they are scriptural. The doctrinal creed always has its surge protector on—that is, we say that our doctrine fits Biblical theology. But when is the basic question asked: does God really teach this, then the response often is that we are not even plugged in, after all. That is exactly the problem in jumping to the doctrine, rather than making the Bible drive the doctrine. We go to the later computer troubleshooting tools, assuming that number one and two are already “plugged in.” If we do not start from the proper and literal interpretation of scripture, then how can we possibly arrive at the correct interpretation? James tells us that not many of you should be teachers, for teachers are subject to a stricter judgment. I believe that stricter judgment can be ameliorated by teachers coming to God, in the Bible, opening it before him, and pleading, teach me, that I may teach others, that I may not teach them my favorite doctrine, but rather that you should drive me in everything I teach. Here are the three rules I think should drive your approach to the Bible. First, what is it saying? Second, who is it directed to? And third, what does it mean? Only at the last point, after we have gone through these three steps, can we ask what is its application? In the paragraph above, I just described, as faithfully as I know how, the verbal-plenary interpretation of the Bible. Sometimes it is referred to as the “literal” interpretation of the Bible, because it is seeking to find the foundational truth of what is being said. Do we dare to approach the Bible literally, taking God at his meaning? Do we dare approach the Bible any other way? If there is one truth to be found, can we find it better than by finding exactly what God is saying and allow doctrine, or meaning, to develop from that? Again, the reminder of my analogy, we always think our computers are plugged in, and the surge protectors are, of course, on, so why would we check them? Only to be embarrassed when we find out they are not, because we did not do our homework and check our basics. Many Christians, myself included, know their proof texts. We are told to have a defense of our faith, and when questioned, we recite the proof texts. My problem in dealing with people reciting their proof texts is those texts are third or fourth on the troubleshooting lists, and the person declaring his doctrine, has never gone through the list, starting from one and two. He is not plugged in. Interestingly, he is able to defend his doctrine, a good thing, but his doctrine, when held up to the lens of the Bible, collapses. I find it is no good presenting the Biblical interpretation, for the heart must be opened to God to correct the salacious teaching. Doctrine should come from the Bible and it should never be that we prove our doctrine from the Bible, but rather that the Bible compels us to adopt our beliefs. Our measure of whether we are doing this or not? Probably, as teachers of the saints, you might check to see where you are doing most of your reading. Is it in the latest book of the favorite creed? Or are you doing enough Bible reading to show it is the center of all your doctrine? Not long ago, I heard someone proclaim that his doctrine was better than the one I believed, because he did not have to be afraid anymore, and that his doctrine was infinitely more comfortable than mine. I did not want to take him to task, but I cannot but reflect he is missing the whole foundation of doctrine. If you will, he has not checked to see if his computer is plugged in. Doctrine is to come from God through the Bible; whether it makes us comfortable or not should be the furthest thing from our minds. It is never that one truth is equal to another; it is only that God teaches, and I but should reflect. One of the most godly pastors I ever had was driven by this verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible, and I remember his deep humility, when in his 80’s he found his Bible to be saying something different than he had taught. The next Sunday found him in the pulpit, correcting and apologizing for his errant teaching. Though I felt the error to have been slight, his concern was to be both truthful and faithful to the message. An example of what I think might carry the church back to basics. Our prayer should always be: O God, thou sayest in thy Word Help us to find what Thou teachest, And then for us to teach it purely, As you have taught us. But be careful, for if you are as I, you suffer passions for this teaching or that one. I can easily fire myself up to teach something I feel so passionate about. I have to make sure that those passions are firmly plugged in to the basics of the Bible. I know of no other way, besides being more intimate with your Bible than any other book.
Posted on: Sun, 07 Jul 2013 15:23:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015