Don Carson on What To Do with ‘That’s Just Your Interpretation’
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 авг 2024
- Don Carson-New Testament professor at Trinity Evangelical and TGC president-gives some helpful tools to Christians dealing with objections to an understanding of Scripture.
Thank you dr carson. I have valued your lectures and sermons for years now. You inspired me to just keep learning and living the Truth. I thank God for you.
Thank you for this .
This reminds me of a statement I’ve been saying for years concerning understanding. “The more you know the more you know for sure you don’t know.”
Great wisdom Pastor Carson. Thks!
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'll have to watch this video a couple times to grasp everything Carson said... lol
Glad someone in this space has studied philosophy sufficiently. Good job.
Working with teens I run into this a lot:
"that's just your interpretation!"
"No, it isn't. But, even if it was, why is that a bad thing? What specifically about my understanding not valid and why?
or
"What do you mean by 'just my interpretation?"
Michael Duncan You’re so right and times haven’t changed. I remember saying the same thing to my mother as a teen (in the 80s) when I didn’t want “her interpretation” to be right so that I could go my own way. But “there is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death”. Right? Very scary, but I thank God for a mother who refused to stop praying for me.
“No it isn’t…but even if it was…” is a line straight out of the narcissists’ playbook.
“No it isn’t…but even if it was…” is a line straight out of the narcissists’ playbook.
“No it isn’t…but even if it was…” is a line straight out of the narcissists’ playbook.
Grateful for this video - it got me thinking where I needed to think more.
I liked the defence that Don Carson gave in the video although I found it hard to see its implications. But here is what I imagine at its foundation to be the same argument said another way.
When a person says to you "this verse or passage can be interpreted in different ways" you say to them "What you mean is people CHOOSE to interpret it in a range of ways. That's true but here's why you cannot in saying that also believe that everyone's interpretation is equally valid. If you are saying that this verse or passage is able to be interpreted in a range of ways you are making a statement which has consequences - in saying that all possible interpretations are valid you are saying that my interpretation is also valid. But what if my interpretation of this verse or passage is that it can only be interpreted one way? No-one can deny there are sentences which have only one possible meaning. You cannot believe that all interpretations are valid without including an interpretation which contradicts that. So not all interpretations are valid".
The person arguing this will then be forced to say either that not all interpretations are valid or specifically that our interpretation is wrong. But then that's a more manageable path forward in engaging with the person.
Well said.👏👏👏
All readings are interpretations. In other words, understanding a Biblical text assumes that you've already interpreted it. Indeed, your interpretation IS your understanding. So it's not as if anyone could offer anything other than an interpretation of any text.
I don't think there's an exception to this. I can't think how there could be. Even if God were to write out His interpretation of a Bible passage across the sky in letters of fire, every reader of that would still have to interpret what He had written.
I used to consistently encounter a similar comment from a certain Christian whenever I quoted the authority of scripture "Yes, and that's for you, but that's not for me".
We have since parted ways because she decided not much of scripture was meant for her.
The idea that it’s ‘authoritative’ is, again, just an interpretation that some people choose to hold. The levels of gaslit narratives present in evangelicalism are astounding once you manage to break out of it and get a fresh perspective.
Thank you for this advice.
I do think it’s a bit of a leap from ‘I don’t like your interpretation’ to ‘You’re arguing with God’.
And I also wonder ‘Why bother?’ Your questioner is either elect or not, surely ?
🙂
👍
It's interesting how in Carson's wider theology, God so loved the world _does not_ mean God loved the world but only the elect but if you disagree with him, you're not arguing with him but with God!
**Slow claps**
you are a legend
man I want to talk theology with you
@@cobyleebrooks, hahaha. I'd talk theology 24*7! :)
Feels a bit like whataboutism, and/or out of context. When Carson described John 3:16, he describing it at a high level, when you're trying to jump to finer details of that specific passage. Perhaps you shouldn't distract from what this video is actually conveying, and leave that discussion for when the core interpretation of that passage is the context?
in ANY spiritual matters...if one is naive with the noetics effects of sin there will always be a lack of authority. your epistemology must be governed by your hamartiology...being naive in this area will lead to naive elsewhere...faulty starting position. this is why special revelation is the only true apologetic method...the Word works through the Spirit...and our role is to explain the Word as accurately as we can...it seems to me, God in His grace fills in all our theological gaps and gaffes. for instance, can NT Wright share the gospel and DA Carson...and both can lead to salvation? How about John MacArthur and Jack Hayford? Get what I mean?
My interptretation of Acts 2 : 22-24; 32,33,36 is that Jesus is a different being, a different entity from God. The Jesus figure died and was raised from the dead by God. He was exalted to the right hand of the God figure. He was made both lord and Christ by God.
The problem is you are completely disregarding the context of the passage and the other passages of the Bible, where it becomes evident that Jesus is God himself. Therefore, your interpretation is wrong.
@@dartheli7400 : Seriously? I just described exactly what the passage says. Perhaps you can show me where my exegesis is found wanting.
In terms of the totality of the NT, perhaps while you are at it, you can explain to me why Jesus is differentiated from God hundreds of times.
Perhaps you can explain to me why the Jesus of the NT has a God; why the resurrected Jesus has a God (John 20 :17); and why the glorified Jesus in heaven itself still has a God(Rev3 :`12).
@@gerryquinn5578 *Perhaps you can show me where my exegesis is found wanting.*
Well, because Peter is talking about the crucifixion and ressurection of Jesus in light of David‘s prophecy, which is explicitly tied to Jesus‘ human nature. Jesus was God in the flesh, after all (See John 1:1,14). I admit, the passage does seem confusing in isolation, but that‘s exactly why one has to consider the context as well as *all* passages that touch this topic.
I mean you said yourself that God raised up Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:24). How then do you explain John 2:19,21? Jesus foretells his resurrection, by specifically stating that he himself will raise his body (temple).
You don‘t seem to understand that Jesus was fully God (though emptied, see Philippians 2:6-7) *and* fully man. Using isolated prooftexts won‘t help you. If anything, you are in an equally difficult situation, since you have to explain the references to Jesus‘ divinity as well.
@@dartheli7400 : Classic Trinitarian eisegesis. You are projecting your beliefs on the text and not allowing the text to speak for itself.
We see this with your assumption that "Jesus was God in the flesh, after all." This assumption determines how you understand the scriptures. Rather, you should allow the totality if scripture to shape your beliefs. The gospels tell us that Jesus died. The gospels tell us that he prayed to God; worshipped his God and always has a God. The resurrected Jesus has a God (John 20 :17) and the glorified Jesus in heaven has a God. (Rev 3 :12). The NT continually differentiates Jesus from God and sees him as eternally subordinate to God.(1 Cor 15 : 24-28). But, rather than look at what the text says, you search for a few texts to justify your preconceived ideas.
Can you show me a single text where we are told that God exists as three persons ? Can you show me a text where God is described as an essence?
The God of Jesus was the God of Israel, the God of the Bible. The Jews did not see God as anything but one person. Neither did the first believers who were all Jewish monotheists. They believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God.
@@gerryquinn5578 Well, at least I explained the text that supposedly contradicts my position. You didn‘t even try to reconcile my presented texts with your interpretation. So my questions still remain:
If God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:24), then how do you explain John 2:19-21?
How do you explain John 1:1,14, whereby the Word is God, who became flesh and dwellt among us as the Son?
*Can you show me a single text where we are told that God exists as three persons? Can you show me a text where God is described as an essence?*
That‘s faulty questioning. The Bible doesn‘t have to make literal statements for something to be true. Truth can also be derived. I am very confident that you hold to such beliefs yourself, though I don‘t know what you specifically believe.
The objection may be inherent in the subjectivity within Protestantism. The church is the pillar and foundation of truth. That very truth from Scripture is a huge clue to the unfixable problem in Protestantism. Withmyowneyes.blog
SuperReisiger
I encourage you to study history. Not anti-Catholic sources. And when putting one on trial, let the one on trial testify for himself. I was an unjust judge for a long time. withmyowneyes.blog/2018/01/28/i-unjust-judge-lord-have-mercy/
SuperReisiger
I thought the problem was obvious. Pardon. At the heart of the video you have the inherent subjectivity of Protestantism without any objective authority. The ever-fracturing nature of Protestantism, rooted in subjectivism, private interpretation and an absence of authority, is the unfixable problem. It stands in objective contrast to the clear words of our Lord in his High Priestly prayer of John 17 for unity, and in objective contrast to the clear words of St. Paul in 1 Tim. 3:15 that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. When a dozen or a thousand Protestant “churches”/confessions of faith differ, that is objective proof that there is an unfixable problem.
If you have specific questions with sources for your allegations, I will be happy to take a look. I don’t know it all, but research is available to us all. Blessings.
Andrew Dressler
Of course Scripture is authoritative. The question is rather the final authority for interpretation. The Scripture calls the church the pillar and foundation of truth. Let that sink in and let it accomplish all God intends with His living word. Blessings.
Andrew Dressler
That’s a lot of words, and I appreciate your thoughtfulness. But Scripture is not self-interpreting. Are you saying that Scripture is the pillar and bulwark of truth? Hmm. Scripture says differently. Scripture says that of the church. Which of the thousands of Protestant bodies is that pillar and bulwark of truth? I really want to know. Following that impossible conundrum to ground revealed to me the heresy of sola Scriptura.
It sounds like you’re a believer in sola Scriptura. Do you get that from Scripture, because I couldn’t find it there? Do you get it from history and church tradition, because I couldn’t find it there? Do you get it by reasoning yourself to that place?
Is it the same reasoning power that ignores, for example, the plain reading of John chapter 6 on the Eucharist, which can be followed in an unbroken line to and through St. John’ the Evangelist’s student who became Bishop of Antioch? And seen in the consistent teaching of the Apostolic Fathers, the Church Fathers and right up to this afternoon at 12:10 pm Daily Mass at the Cathedral-Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Mobile, Alabama (whose patron saint, by the way, is the second-century heresy hunter, St. Irenaeus of Lyon)? It sure seems like Jesus intended to be with us in a miraculous way, and that the Holy Spirit has safeguarded the truth in His miraculous way down through the ages. It’s really not too much to believe when, exercising the gracious gift of faith, one believes the Scriptures!
That western, rationalistic reasoning has a number of hallmarks with 500 years of solid evidence: division, negation, separation, disunity and ultimately denial. When the denominations split a hundred ways from Sunday, and eventually go over the cliff, a few folks grab their Bibles and start all over. Always reinventing the wheel.
Here’s my latest blog piece. (withmyowneyes.blog/2018/07/31/ignatian-evidence-demands-a-verdit-part-2/#more-534) How John Calvin threw the baby out with the bath water. Don’t be that guy. God bless you on the journey man. It has been a wild ride for me, coming from my anti-Catholic Baptist-then-Reformed Theology background. I did not plan on any of this!
SuperReisiger
Thank you for your prayers. A few comments. Never have I had a higher view of Scripture than since entering the Catholic Church (and that’s coming from a former, serious sola-Scriptura-Protestant). And I have no doubt Who my Saviour is, and it’s definitely not me. Finally, I find completely un-Biblical the idea that the Eucharist is a secondary or tertiary matter. Only by clinging to a sixteenth-century tradition can one even begin to say something like that. Way too much Scripture and Tradition must be ignored to take such a position. Blessings.