Reason to Believe.

[jesse]

Why do we adhere to a mode of interpretation?


I was reading some views on war expressed by the early church the other night... and although i agreed with their views... almost every quote they used from the bible I thought was extremely out of context... It kinda confused me... these guys lived very close in terms of time, to Christ... and yet they seemed to be ignorant of a lot of things the bible says. Now i don't think the disciples knew what was going on most of the time, so I doubt that the fact that these guys lived at a similar time, makes them experts. But then... why do I believe what I believe and not something else? On what criteria do I base my decision to believe in some particular method or mode of interpretation?

This began me thinking... Why am I Protestant not Catholic? Why do I believe in salvation by faith not works?

Is it because it is what the bible says? Well all belief systems will agree with that... so probably not.

Is it because I believe what I was told? No. I don't believe everything that my own denomination believes.

I have been thinking about it over and over and the only reason I can think of is because some particular method of belief seems to open up more scripture.

And this seems to work in reverse as well. If, for instance, I was given a new verse from the bible that said "Jesus traveled to China and where he built a spaceship and flew to the nearest planet which is where heaven is" I would have a hard time fitting that in with anything else I come across in the bible. I would probably even question its validity as scripture. Right?

So then, if something seems to illuminate many other passages... is that a good reason to believe it? Is it like a giant puzzle and we are piecing it together?

Are there better reasons?

[Dani H]

Most things that I firmly believe and adhere to unwaiveringly about Scripture is because they can be borne out against and tested in real-life situations. That is where those beliefs are tested and that is where many dearly held ones end up having to be reconsidered. At least that's true for me personally. God is real and He deals with real people in real situations. So whatever we believe has to have bearing on reality or it's rather useless IMO.

[jesse]

Most things that I firmly believe and adhere to unwaiveringly about Scripture is because they can be borne out against and tested in real-life situations. That is where those beliefs are tested and that is where many dearly held ones end up having to be reconsidered. At least that's true for me personally. God is real and He deals with real people in real situations. So whatever we believe has to have bearing on reality or it's rather useless IMO.

That is true for some things. Like perhaps moral issues. Or salvation by faith as opposed to works.

However, I would think the vast majority of issues that come up probably could not be remedied that way. For instance. Is there a heaven or a hell? Is hell actually hot? Is Christ king right now? Is the Church in Heaven? Etc. These things can't be proven outside of scripture.

[IMINXTC]

While none of us can claim to have a perfect understanding of every jot and tittle of scripture (thus, the divisions in the church), the scripure must be our standard for all things concerning the faith - outside of the Bible, our beliefs become merely relative opinons, however lofty or profound.

What I believe must be confirmed by a reasonable and contextual rendering of Scripture.

And the scripture is sufficient for me, even when I fail to fully comprehend it.

[Dani H]

That is true for some things. Like perhaps moral issues. Or salvation by faith as opposed to works.

However, I would think the vast majority of issues that come up probably could not be remedied that way. For instance. Is there a heaven or a hell? Is hell actually hot? Is Christ king right now? Is the Church in Heaven? Etc. These things can't be proven outside of scripture.

Please pause for a moment and think about what you're saying here.

What I'm reading is "most of the Bible has nothing to do with reality." That is what I read when I see the words "true for some things."

Heaven and hell both describe reality. Jesus being King describes reality. Just because we don't fully comprehend something, doesn't make it any less real. What person is where, how and why, is for God to decide, of course. Which is why if we're going to prove Scripture, HE has to be sought. Because He actually knows.

I find myself walking on very dangerous ground when I look outside of God for interpretation of Scripture.

Granted I can't go to heaven today and come back and tell about it. No human being knows where the revolving door happens to be, if there is one. So, you have to look to the one Person who lives both in heaven and earth, and who can tell you about it. His testimony is reliable and true. When Jesus speaks of the Kingdom, it is because He has seen heaven, came from it, and understands the principles it operates by. Granted, trying to explain that to mere mortals is like trying to describe the color blue to a blind person. There's going to be some limitations. Which is why He choose to use parables because those are accessible to human understanding.

Therefore, while I consider biblical scholarship a valuable and honorable pursuit, if God is left out of the picture, then there's no reason for it. Because all you have left are (modern) man's interpretations of things and events that (modern) man has never actually seen, heard or participated in and therefore possesses very little actual knowledge of. Which is where Scripture gets taken out of context and crammed into man's understanding box and the meaning is utterly lost in the process.


I do believe that even inside the Bible, our beliefs become mere relative opinions, however lofty or profound (to quote my dear brother above me), if Scripture is failed to be taken at its intended meaning and if the mind of the Author is not sought in the process, as well as reliable historical context, and etc.

Which is why I approach my Bible reading as: If I don't really know for sure what it means and it doesn't have any bearing on my conduct that I'm going to be judged for after all it's said and done ... those kinds of beliefs are going to be suspended and tucked in a back corner until illumination happens, and they're not going to be a priority, and most certainly not a point of contention because that's where you end up with useless squabbles that profit nothing. For example, it doesn't matter one iota if I can "biblically prove" that Eve ate a pomegranate versus a peach. Because the fruit she ate was what it was, and if my studies don't lead me to the correct identification of it, then my studies are useless and happening in fantasyland.

I'm not going to base the decisions I have to make every day before God with a clear conscience, on mere guesses. So real-life applications are the highest priority when it comes to my personal Bible studies. The rest is more in the realm of personal curiosity. For example, things like how old the earth is, and how long God took to create anything. I wasn't there, I can't time travel, I can't change any of it, and so it's not a priority because what I believe about it really has no bearing on anything. However, my belief that God was there, that He is powrful enough to have created the entire universe, absolutely has a bearing on my life. It builds my faith and leads to greater trust in Him. It helps me get the proper perspective on things. It helps me see God for the infinite and great Being that He actually is.

If after all your studying, your faith in God isn't strengthened, if your view of Him isn't heightened, and if your obedience to Him isn't solidified ... why study Scripture at all? Personal curiosity? Winning an argument? Keeping up with some Bible study group? Tradition? Gratifying some religious conscience? Being able to make a better post to somebody and present a better argument? You can readily see that those reasons that leave God out of the picture are all too unworthy to study such a sacred text. Which is why we study is every bit as important as what and how we study.

[jesse]

Please pause for a moment and think about what you're saying here.

What I'm reading is "most of the Bible has nothing to do with reality." That is what I read when I see the words "true for some things."

Heaven and hell both describe reality. Jesus being King describes reality. Just because we don't fully comprehend something, doesn't make it any less real. What person is where, how and why, is for God to decide, of course. Which is why if we're going to prove Scripture, HE has to be sought. Because He actually knows.

I don't mean that most of it has nothing to do with reality. What I mean is... we don't know there is a hell or a heaven outside of the Bible telling us. I have never been to heaven... I think you even brought that up later in your post... 90% of what is in the bible can not be seen or experienced. Without the bible how would i know that a guy named David was king of Israel or that Daniel had a vision of a statue or that Adam and Eve began the human race or that Christ died and rose... none of these things are knowable unless they were revealed to us by God. Even the idea of sin itself... we can say that we understand why it is wrong to steal or murder because it hurts society... but that is not why it is a sin... it is a sin because God said it is and that is only knowable from the Bible. Meaning that without the Bible we might realize some sins are bad... but we wouldn't understand the real reason why or the full consequences of what sin will do. And if we don't properly understand the bible then we won't properly understand God. And the whole reason we have the bible is so we can understand God.

I am not saying the bible is largely impractical. On the contrary I personally believe that when we are in heaven physics and math probably won't be that important, but the Bible probably still will be. All the more reason to understand what it means.

I am also not suggesting we look to someone other than God for help... although we probably all do... What i mean by "mode of belief" is basically why do you believe the bible the way you believe it instead of the way others believe it?

For instance, here is a classic. Is the Rock Christ? or is it Peter?

And I tell you that you are Peter (peter means pebble) , and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. Matthew 16:18

I believe it is Christ of course because I am protestant not Catholic. But why do i believe that? Because when I do... all of a sudden all these verses that talk about the rock.... make sense. Moses hitting a rock and water comes out.... makes sense. Jesus being a cornerstone... makes sense. Build your foundation on the rock... makes sense. A stone that causes men to stumble... makes sense. You see? Believing the rock is peter is nice if you want have a reason to control the Church through apostolic succession ... but asides from that... it makes no sense at all. It doesn't illuminate any of the other scriptures... in fact it clouds them and obscures what should be plain. So my mode of belief is based on the fact that it opens up scripture. See what i am saying? I believe it because it fits.

[Dani H]

For instance, here is a classic. Is the Rock Christ? or is it Peter?

And I tell you that you are Peter (peter means pebble) , and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. Matthew 16:18

I believe it is Christ of course because I am protestant not Catholic. But why do i believe that? Because when I do... all of a sudden all these verses that talk about the rock.... make sense. Moses hitting a rock and water comes out.... makes sense. Jesus being a cornerstone... makes sense. Build your foundation on the rock... makes sense. A stone that causes men to stumble... makes sense. You see? Believing the rock is peter is nice if you want have a reason to control the Church through apostolic succession ... but asides from that... it makes no sense at all. It doesn't illuminate any of the other scriptures... in fact it clouds them and obscures what should be plain. So my mode of belief is based on the fact that it opens up scripture. See what i am saying? I believe it because it fits.

Okay I see what you're saying. And, I agree with you on that. There are recurrent themes in Scripture, and if we look at them in their entirety, things do become very plain.

[BroRog]

And I tell you that you are Peter (peter means pebble) , and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. Matthew 16:18[/COLOR]

I believe it is Christ of course because I am protestant not Catholic. But why do i believe that? Because when I do... all of a sudden all these verses that talk about the rock.... make sense. Moses hitting a rock and water comes out.... makes sense. Jesus being a cornerstone... makes sense. Build your foundation on the rock... makes sense. A stone that causes men to stumble... makes sense. You see? Believing the rock is peter is nice if you want have a reason to control the Church through apostolic succession ... but asides from that... it makes no sense at all. It doesn't illuminate any of the other scriptures... in fact it clouds them and obscures what should be plain. So my mode of belief is based on the fact that it opens up scripture. See what i am saying? I believe it because it fits.

I think the "rock" is neither Peter nor Jesus, but the rock is Peter's confession. That is, Jesus is going to build his church on the confession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." This confession is the "rock" on which the entire church is being constructed.

[JohnDB]

I think the "rock" is neither Peter nor Jesus, but the rock is Peter's confession. That is, Jesus is going to build his church on the confession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." This confession is the "rock" on which the entire church is being constructed.

not quite...but what is standardly believed...IOW the church answer.

For the real truth to that passage that includes Peter's confession of Christ I wrote a thread 'Rock and Roll...hoochie koo?" and if you would like to refute it...then by all means please show us your proofs and beliefs.

[jesse]

I think the "rock" is neither Peter nor Jesus, but the rock is Peter's confession. That is, Jesus is going to build his church on the confession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." This confession is the "rock" on which the entire church is being constructed.

Ok. Can I ask you a question about why you believe that? I don't need the specifics... but what is the method you used? Do you believe the rock is always talking about the confession? or something else. What is motivating you to believe something different?

"The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior! 2 Samuel 22:47

[BroRog]

Ok. Can I ask you a question about why you believe that? I don't need the specifics... but what is the method you used? Do you believe the rock is always talking about the confession? or something else. What is motivating you to believe something different?

"The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior! 2 Samuel 22:47

When Jesus talks about building his church on a rock, we understand that he isn't talking about an actual rock or stone. The "rock" represents something else. So the question is, what does the rock represent?

I agree that many times in Scripture, Jesus is represented as a rock. For instance, Paul refers to Christ as a rock in 1Cor. 10:4,

and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

When I read the Bible, however, I don't automatically assume that all mention of a rock refers to Jesus Christ himself. I want to allow the person speaking, Jesus in this case, to use his words to say what he wants to say. Jesus might be making another point with the symbol of a rock. If he is, I want to be ready to follow his line of thinking as he teaches me and not jump to any conclusions. Jesus is certainly my rock and yours. No doubt about that.

In fact, elsewhere, the New Testaments refers to Jesus as a rock on which he is building his church. Here is an example.

In Psalms 118 we read

22 The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief corner stone.
23 This is the Lord's doing;
It is marvelous in our eyes.

The New Testament author's pick up on the idea that our Lord Jesus is the corner stone the builders rejected.

Peter says in Acts 4

11 "He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders,
but which became the chief corner stone.
12 "And there is salvation in no one else;
for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men
by which we must be saved."

The corner stone was a foundation stone, placed on the ground first. Everything else was measured from that stone. The Psalmist points out that the builders will reject the corner stone. And Peter points out that his own people, specifically the leaders of Judea, rejected Jesus Christ who was the chief corner stone. Thus, we have a precedent in scripture for the idea that our Lord is our rock and not just any rock but the corner stone of our faith and his body the church.

Nonetheless, as we read other passages of scripture that use a rock or a stone symbolically, are we to assume it always refers to Jesus? I don't think so. I think Jesus likes to use everyday objects like stones and bread to teach us things about himself and his kingdom, and we should wait for him to make his point and evaluate his stories and examples on a case-by-case basis. I think we will learn more if we wait and let Jesus teach.

If you accept the way I approach the scriptures, then I would love to give you my explanation of the passage.