Christian Scholar: 2 ESSENTIAL Tips for Bible Interpretation
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 окт 2024
- Dr. James Renihan, president of IRBS (International Reformed Baptist Seminary) and professor of historical theology, explains two principles of Bible interpretation which are critical to a right reading of Scripture.
Often times, Mormons will say that our reading of Scripture is "just your interpretation." How can we know which interpretation is correct? Christians must apply certain interpretive principles to rightly understand what God has revealed. In this video, Dr. Renihan provides two historic guardrails for Bible interpretation: the analogy of Scripture, and the analogy of faith.
God has spoken in His Word, and Scripture is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." If Scripture can do these things-then we really are able to rightly interpret the Bible. Understanding principles like these will help protect Christians from misinterpreting the Bible.
--
We filmed this video at the G3 Conference in September 2023. Thanks to Dr. Renihan for taking time to do this interview with us! If you're interested in checking out Dr. Renihan's seminary, visit irbsseminary.org/
--
RELATED VIDEOS:
Which Bible Interpretation is True?: • Which Bible interpreta...
Is it good for Mormons and Christians to debate Scripture?: • Should Mormons & Chris...
Here's why the Bible is Inspired and without error: • The Bible Is Inerrant ...
3 Reasons Christians Don't Need a Modern Prophet: • Modern Prophets: 3 Rea...
How To Properly Discern Truth: • A Christian's Plea To ...
What are Bible translations?: • King James Version Onl...
#GodLovesMormons #IRBS #bible #biblestudy #hermeneutics #Christianity #mormon #theology #christianyoutuber #churchofjesuschrist #g32023
Great video and very needed info for everyone. Dr. Renihan is always so helpful.
I like Bernard Ramm's statement on the "hermeneutical circle" from over 50 years ago: "We can understand a particular passage only if we know what the whole Scripture teaches; but we can only know what the whole Scripture teaches by knowing the meaning of its parts. And so all theological interpretation of Scripture is a rotation or 'spiraling' from part to whole, and whole to part."
@@Imtryingtobelikejesus-m1m Hi Katherine. I’m doing well. I check your blog every now and then to see how you’re doing. You haven’t posted much this year but I know you are always incredibly busy.
Regarding the conference, I didn’t have a schedule but I briefly checked in three times on Saturday to see what was going on. Twice I tuned into the burning microwave video and once I got in on the latter part of a talk that was asking adults to consider going on mission. So no, I really didn’t make too much of an effort.
I didn’t see anything about charity in simonduanmusic’s post, but I see that he edited it, so maybe he removed it. I see two short paragraphs. I’m afraid I don’t understand the first one. And I can’t really comment on the second one without knowing all his assumptions behind the statements. I believe we do need to put the data and facts we find in Scripture above our own dogmas.
That’s what the hermeneutical circle is about. Our view of the whole (i.e., dogma or body of doctrines) is based on the parts, just as our understanding of the parts is based on the whole. If we see a passage that doesn’t seem to line up with our understanding of the whole, we don’t automatically reject that understanding of the whole, but we can question it and see if we’re misunderstanding the passage or maybe we need to tweak our understanding of the whole.
The process attempts to be as objective as possible. But all objectivity is lost if we cut out the passages that don’t fit our dogma. The analogy of Scripture and the analogy of faith mentioned in the video, and the hermeneutical circle are only relevant if the Bible is your authority for faith and practice.
To me this seems like a pretty acurate way to interpret the Bible within Evangelism, but if we are honest about it, "the Mormons" are spot on, for in the end it's just that, a way of individual interpretation, no matter how many agurments someone may use to back it up by one or the other scripture.
The best way to read the Bible, as I see it, is to always be willing to let go of everything that turns out to be false, to always put the data, facts and incoming truths above ones own Dogmas.. Everything else, at least to me, just seems to be an attempt to bend the truth to make ones own Dogma work.
The Mormons R completely wrong on their interpretations being filtered through the false prophet writings of their leaders.
These interpretations R NOT the Ancient worldviews of the Biblical writers and there was NO Great Apostasy that corrupted the Authentic Christian churches after the Authentic Apostles died.
@@davidjanbaz7728 You most likely wont believe me, but the ancient world view is quite different from the evangelical interpreation of things too.. Have you ever actually questioned your own faith the same way you question Mormonism? Or is it ok to bend the facts to make your own faith work...
The reason I ask is because if you truly look into ancient history, you will quickly see that many things like Sola Scriptura, Ex Nihilo, and your concept of hell, are not even taught the way you believe in it within the scriptures.
For example lets look at your concept of hell..
The teaching of Hell, as you believe in it, and where according to your understanding all Mormons will eventuelly end up, is not even taught within the Old Testament at all. The teaching we find in there is that of "Sheol", which merely refers to a place though where ALL people will go, but where there is neither punishment, nor pleasure..
The first time we hear about "hell with punishment" actually is in the Book of Enoch, a book not even in the Bible... From there on it took 200 years to evolve in all sorts of directions, all outside the Bible, and Christianity simply adopted these things into their own believesystem, now claiming it to be the one inherent and univocal teaching of the Bible...
It seems like to some people, truth can only be good news for them, if it's bad news for someone else. Feeling good about going to heaven, for example, seems to feel so much more better if literally having a save place from where you can condemn others to hell..
That kind of heaven must be hell of a place ;)
@@SimonDaumMusicour “concept of hell” comes from Jesus in the New Testament, Who actually spoke about hell more than anyone else.
So if you’re going to propose the idea that Jews/Christians were always the ones just copying other people (conveniently never the other way around) then you’d have to say Jesus was just copying other people.
Edit: again, no one condemns anyone to hell. Christians can only warn of it. I used this comparison already with you: If I tell someone, “You’ll die if you eat that,” am I condemning them to death? Obviously not.
@@Liberator54321 Yes, Jesus teaches about hell, but teaches conflicting things, Paul never talks about it, other biblical authors seem to reference Jesus, but do so also in conflicting ways, and the Christian Old Testament teaches the concept of „Sheol“..
Of course I am aware that not every Evangelical is condemning LDS to hell, but I talked to enough Evangelicals to know that many still do.... and my point with this is that even though this may at times come from a sincere heart, and even if it is backed up by the one or the other scripture, in the end it remains a judgement of other people they know nothing about, except for their interpretaion of where they supposedly err in.... which remains that, a personal judgement.
Just when we look at this one topic of "hell", we see that the Bible and not even Jesus teaches that one inherent, univocal concept of it, and yet, when it comes to Mormons, it is clearer than noone day that it's where they will end up, because they believe in a false Jesus...
@@SimonDaumMusic do you have any examples of these supposed conflicting references? And Paul goes on in Romans about there being no condemnation for those in Christ, so yes he does.
Edit: I’m not sure what you mean by “inherent, univocal concept,” but John 8:24 is probably the answer to that.
And saying “it remains a judgement of other people they know nothing about” ignores the various passages about rebuking those who contradict sound doctrine.
Also, I meant to point it out my first reply, but you didn’t actually respond to what the person said to you.
This guy doesn’t seems to realize the glaring contradictions of this line of seeking truth vs how evangelicals actually seek “truth.”
Evangelicals throw out James in defense of Paul.
Christian author, C. S. Lewis, compared grace and works to the blades of a pair of scissors. Both are necessary. To ask “Are you saved by grace or works?” is like asking “Do you cut with this blade or that one?”
C.S. Lewis is a great dude, he also stated:
“It is as well to put this the other way round. Some of us who seem quite nice people may, in fact, have made so little use of a good heredity and good upbringing that we are really worse than those whom we regard as fiends. Can we be quite certain how we should have behaved if we had been saddled with the psychological outfit, and then with the bad upbringing, and then with the power, say, of Himmler? That is why Christians are told not to judge. We see only the results which a man's choices make out of his raw material. But God does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what he has done with it. Most of the man's psychological makeup is probably due to his body: when his body dies all that will fall off him, and the real central man, the thing that chose, that made the best or worst out of this material, will stand naked. All sorts of nice things which we thought our own, but which were really due to a good digestion, will fall off some of us: all sorts of nasty things which were due to complexes or bad health will fall off others. We shall then, for the first time, see every one as he really was. There will be surprises.”
Sorry if you dont have prophets youre alway going to be missing a lot of doctrine
We have someone better than prophets. We have the Holy Spirit.
@@ellebrooks55 then why does he try to settle things with the bible?
@fred-62 How would you determine if someone was/is a prophet?
@@florabelle912 That is pretty simple, the Bible teaches how to discern true from false Prophets in the last days (which by the way only makes sense if there actually are Prophets to discern), which is by their fruits.. Jesus made clear that once we taste of the good fruit, we will know its tree is good also... Paul made clear that this can neither refer to works, working miracles, the gifts of the Spirit, and not even to having faith to remove mountains, for all these things are worth nothing without Charity, can be faked and pretended (meaning the tree can be evil even if the fruits appear to be good)..
Now, even Charity itselfe can be pretended and faked, so, Jesus cant possibly mean we can discern true from false Prophets merely by their fruits, but rather we are to discern true from false Prphets (or religions, teachings, books, even visions and dreams) by how much Charity it brings forth within us..
With that, everything that inspires to bring forth true love, kindness, long-suffering, patience, mindfulness, forgiveness etc. towards ourselves and others, out of a pure heart, is of God.. and yes, that applies to literally everything that brings forth the "good fruits", even if that happens outside the framwork of someones own believesystem.
@@Imtryingtobelikejesus-m1m you're rudeness is obviously : Joseph Smith claiming God said to join none of Them as they R from the mother church of Abominations 1 Nephi 14:10 .
You've been attacking Historical Christianity for over 190 years!