Castles in the Air - начало
March 5, 2003
This paper was originally written in July of 2000. It is based on over two years of my own
Bible study and research begun in January 1998 and concluded in July 2000. The
supporting material for these studies (encompassing Scripture lists, Greek word definitions
and Bible commentaries) take up well over five hundred pages.
I have examined some very basic Scriptural issues, such as salvation and authority, but I
also examined some of the practices and doctrines of the church. I have relied on my own
experience over 15 years as well as written material from various leaders and excerpts
from sermons and lessons.
In these Bible studies, I tried to be as detailed and thorough as possible, given the
seriousness of the subject matter. These studies were never intended to be made public on a
wide scale however. I organized them into a more readable format only so that I could
present my conclusions to close friends here in my church, particularly our lead evangelist
who was and still is, a very dear and beloved friend.
I make no claims to great scholarship, nor do I presume to have discovered anything new.
These studies were simply one man's search for a deeper understanding of the will of God
for his life, that is all.
These studies are not a personal attack on any man, church or group of churches. In fact, I
have refused to post these studies where they might be seen as such. Nonetheless, if they
come across that way to anyone, I humbly ask you to forgive me in advance, for that is
most assuredly not my desire or intent.
A great deal has changed since these studies were written, and some doctrines described
inside are no longer taught. The climate now seems to be entirely different than that of
three years ago. There now seems to be a real willingness to re-examine long held beliefs.
It is my prayer that in some way, however small, these words can help in this process.
Grace and peace to all,
A voice in the wilderness 4
1. EXAMINING THE FOUNDATION
If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost;
that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.
Henry David Thoreau
Walden, Chapter 18
Over the past two years I have been in the process of re-examining my core beliefs as a
Christian to be sure that they were built on sound, biblical foundations. What follows is the
result of my studies.
I was baptized in 1985 in the Boston Church of Christ. This summer will mark 15 years
since I became a Christian. In the spring of 1998 we began studying First Principles here in
my church. It had been about three years since I had last taken this class. One day, as I was
going over The Word study, I came to the part in the study guide that says "you must
question what your religious leaders teach". I paused and thought about that statement for a
I began thinking of all the different things I have said (and heard other people say) over the
years while doing this study. I often used such phrases as "you've got to be willing to
question everything you've been taught, whether it came from your parents who you love
or your religious leaders who you respect. If what they taught you doesn't match up with
the Bible, you've got to be willing to do what God says." Another phrase often used was
"people can be sincere, but sincerity doesn't equal truth. You can be sincerely wrong".
At this point of the study, we would often warn people of the dangers of following
religious leaders unquestioningly. We would talk about how people often accept what
they're taught without ever going back to the Scriptures to see if it is accurate. These
people simply trust their leaders because they think they know more than they do. As a
result of this, they're following all sorts of incorrect teachings and doctrines.
The solution to this problem, we always point out, is that you have to question what your
leaders teach so that you can evaluate its scriptural accuracy. Ultimately however, you
must be willing to just live by the Bible, even if it means going against the opinions of
your friends, family or church leaders. Even if it goes against everything you've ever
believed in the past. Obedience to God must always come first. Finally, we always
conclude the Word study with the challenge to "be a Berean" and to go back over this
study to see if everything we have taught them is true.
It suddenly occurred to me that I could not remember the last time I had actively
questioned what I had been taught. I began to ask myself some hard questions:
- Why do I believe the things I believe? Is it because I am thoroughly convinced
of them from my personal study of the Scriptures or is it simply because I have
believed these things for the last 13 years?
- Am I willing to objectively question what my leaders teach?
- Am I really willing to "just go by the Bible" even if it brings me into conflict
with what I have been taught?
- What is my faith based on: my own convictions or my leaders convictions?
The implications of these questions were enormous. I decided that morning that I was
going to re-examine my core beliefs and re-evaluate their Scriptural accuracy. Most
importantly, I was going to do so with complete objectivity. Merriam Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary defines objective as follows:
Objective -expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without
distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
It was not that I felt this sudden distrust of my leaders. When I think back over the years of
some of the leaders I have known personally, my heart is filled with admiration, love and
respect. Each one of these guys holds a very special place in my heart. They are heroes to
me, and I am forever grateful and thankful for them.
Yet the questions remained: what if these people, who I love so dearly, are teaching
something that is Biblically incorrect? How would I even know if I didn't examine the
Scriptures objectively? Was I really willing to go the next step of asking "what if my entire
church is wrong? What if what I have believed and taught is wrong?" Was I willing to even
consider that possibility?
In the past, whenever I had questions about a teaching that came from my leaders, I would
invariably conclude the following:
- These men are more spiritual than I am.
- They have been Christians longer than I have.
- They know the Scriptures better than I do
- Therefore, I will trust what they teach.
I don't mean to imply that I unthinkingly accepted everything I was taught without having
any kind of Scriptural basis for my belief. It's simply that if a certain issue was not directly
addressed in the Scriptures, and differing views were possible, I would usually side with
Yet, I suddenly realized the danger in the way I had been thinking. I realized that I didn't
have confidence in my own ability to find the truth. As someone who has always wrestled
with a low opinion of myself, I often felt that I wasn't smart enough to understand the
Scriptures the way my leaders did. If I somehow concluded something different than my
leaders, I would virtually always lay my conclusions aside with the thinking that "these
guys are much smarter than I am".
I decided that morning that I would no longer think in this way. There must be sound
Biblical justification for every belief that I have and these beliefs must come from my own
careful, prayerful and objective study of the Scriptures regardless of what my leaders
In order to be completely objective and unbiased in my re-examination of the Bible
however, I had to clear certain mental hurdles in my head. Somehow I had developed the
idea that to disagree with my leaders (who are some of my very best friends in the world)
was to be disrespectful to them. Furthermore, it was disloyal and unsupportive. It simply
didn't occur to me that you could disagree in a righteous manner without ever being
disrespectful, disloyal or unsupportive. I searched the Scriptures for some direction on this
Acts 17: 11-12
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they
received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day
to see if what Paul said was true.
Acts 17: 11 New Living Translation
And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and
they listened eagerly to Paul's message. They searched the Scriptures day after day
to check up on Paul and Silas, to see if they were really teaching the truth.
Rom 12: 2
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the
renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will
is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.
1 Cor 2: 1-5
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom
as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing
while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in
weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4 My message and my preaching
were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's
power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.
2 Cor 13: 5
Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not
realize that Christ Jesus is in you -unless, of course, you fail the test?
1 Thessalonians 5: 21
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
1 Tim 4: 16
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will
save both yourself and your hearers.
2 Timothy 2: 15
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not
need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth
I John 4: 11
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are
from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Rev. 2: 2
I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot
tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are
not, and have found them false.
From these verses, I saw that God fully expects us to examine ourselves (to see if our faith
is genuine), to examine our leaders (to make sure their lifestyle is Godly) and to examine
what we are taught (to make sure it is sound doctrine). We simply don't have the option to
just accept what our leaders teach us without searching the Scriptures for ourselves. It
doesn't matter who they are or how much we love them, we cannot live on a faith
borrowed from someone else.
Later that year, I read an extremely thought provoking book called Common Sense written
by David Bercot. The book discusses the issue of reading the scriptures without an agenda
and without any preconceived ideas. Rather than summarize the book myself, I will quote
from it directly:
"… this is primarily a book about honesty. By the term "honesty", I'm not referring
to restraint from stealing or honesty. Rather I'm speaking of intellectual and
spiritual honesty. That is, the willingness to be totally objective in the pursuit of
God's truth. Intellectually honest Christians have the desire and ability to see all
sides of any spiritual or theological issue. They are far more concerned about what
is true than they are about defending their own personal positions or the positions
of their denomination or church. " p. 2
"If we are convinced that we already know what the correct teachings of Scripture
are, then we can read Scripture over and over and yet never see anything different
from what we already believe." p. 13
"Because of our preconceived beliefs, most Christians have never truly experienced
what it is like to actually listen to what the Bible writers are saying. Instead, when
we read Scripture, all of the preconceived ideas that were inculcated in us as
children or as new Christians drown out the actual words of the Bible. We see the
words on the pages of our Bibles. And we think we are hearing those words. But in
reality, we are often hearing only the words of our teachers, not the words of the
Bible." p. 16
"the first common sense principle of interpretation is: to find truth, you must start
with a blank slate ... How do you know when you are reading Scripture with a
blank slate? The answer is: When you have no theological system to defend. When
you have no prior conclusions to which Scripture must be molded." p. 18
After reading this book, I tried to identify my preconceived ideas about the Scriptures. I
made a decision that I was going to read through the New Testament as if I had never read
it before and without the assumption that my current beliefs were accurate. I was going to
search the Scriptures no matter where it led me. There would be no "sacred cows" of belief
that would be shielded from the searching light of objective examination.
I also decided that I was going to fully accept the possibility that my entire church could be
wrong on crucial Scriptural issues. This is an extremely important point. It's one thing to
realize that you personally have been wrong about a given issue. It's a humbling thing, to
be sure. But you just acknowledge it and you move on.
It is a drastically different story however, when you come to believe that your entire church
and your leaders are wrong about something. Things are not so simple in this case. Coming
to a conclusion that differs from what they teach can (and often will) bring you into
conflict with them. No one relishes conflict with those in authority, especially with
individuals you have come to love and respect. It is therefore much more difficult to
confront errors in your church's doctrine than it is in your own belief system. Nonetheless,
I was determined to read through the Scriptures without assuming that any of our beliefs
The first book in the New Testament that I read with this "blank slate" was the book of
Acts. I was immediately struck by the fact that many of the things we do are nowhere to
be found in Acts: people became Christians quickly and without ever going through "the
Studies", there were no "bible talks", no assigned "discipleship partners", no church
hierarchies with leadership titles such as "sector leader", no mention of special contribution
multipliers, no church budgets, no stats for visitors or bible studies, etc.
Something just didn't seem right to me. The lives of the Christians in Acts seemed so
uncomplicated by church guidelines or rules yet so full of simplicity, power and freedom. I
began to feel that perhaps somewhere, somehow we had gone wrong as a church and that
in seeking to help Christians grow by introducing all these things, we had instead
complicated and confused Christianity.
Yet I also felt, as I read through Acts, that my own understanding of the Scriptures needed
to deepen. Reading the Scriptures without any preconceived ideas is of no use if you do not
know how to properly handle what you're reading. I felt that my ability to understand deep
or problematic scriptural issues was inadequate. So I decided that I would begin studying
the topic of Biblical interpretation. My goal was simply to better understand the Scriptures
so that I could accurately discern the will of God in my life. The following Scriptures
speak to this very issue:
2 Ti. 2: 15
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not
need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth
2 Cor 4: 2
Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor
do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we
commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
2 Peter 3: 15-16
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul
also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in
all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things
that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do
the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Paul's admonition to Timothy in 2 Tim 2: 15 teaches us that we must be sure to "correctly"
handle God's word. This obviously implies the ability to "incorrectly" handle the
Scriptures. Paul told the Corinthians that he didn't distort the word of God but instead he
simply set forth the truth plainly. Similarly, Peter writes that Paul's letters and the other
Scriptures contain some things which are hard to understand and which can be distorted.
It is therefore vitally important for us to examine the way in which we "handle" God's
Word to be sure that we are doing it correctly and not distorting what it says.
2. BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
The first book I read was How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth by Gordon Fee and
Douglas Stuart. The first issue they tackle is the idea that "you don't need to interpret the
Bible, you just need to obey it." This instantly struck me as familiar because those are
virtually the identical words we use when we do the Word study.
However, they go on to show the error of this line of thinking:
"The aim of interpretation is simple: to get at the 'plain meaning of the text'… The
test of good interpretation is that it makes good sense of the text … But if the plain
meaning is what interpretation is all about, then why interpret? Why not just read?
Does not the plain meaning come simply from reading? In a sense, yes. But in a
truer sense, such an argument is both naпve and unrealist ic because of two factors:
the nature of the reader and the nature of scripture." P. 14
When we tell people "don't interpret, just obey", we are actually defining the word
"interpret" incorrectly. What we mean to say is "you can't make the Bible say anything you
want it to say". Yet in the context in which we use it, we portray interpretation as
something negative, something to be avoided. This is completely wrong! The word is
defined by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as follows:
Main Entry: in· ter· pret
1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
2 : to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance
3 : to represent by means of art : bring to realization by performance or direction
Main Entry: in· ter· pre· ta· tion
1 : the act or the result of interpreting : EXPLANATION
2 : a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style
3 : teaching technique that combines factual with stimulating explanatory
To interpret means to give meaning. Therefore, we must interpret the Scriptures because
we must give them meaning. The book goes on to describe why we need to learn how to
interpret the Bible:
1. Everyone is an interpreter -the act of giving meaning to the Scriptures is itself
"The first reason one needs to learn how to interpret is that, whether one likes it or
not, every reader is at the same time an interpreter. That is, most of us assume as
we read that we also understand what we read. We also tend to think that our
understanding is the same thing as the Holy Spirit's or human author's intent…
Sometimes, what we bring to the text, unintentionally to be sure, leads us astray, or
else causes us to read all kinds of foreign ideas into the text."
2. The English translation we read is the result of interpretation.
"The reader of an English Bible is already involved in interpretation. For translation
is itself a (necessary) form or translation… Translators are regularly called upon to
make choices regarding meanings and their choices are going to affect how you
understand." P. 15
3. The Bible isn't always easy to understand.
"… not all plain meanings are equally plain to all… Given all this diversity, both
within and without the church, and all the difference among scholars who
supposedly know 'the rules', it is no wonder that some argue for no interpretation,
just reading. But as we have seen, that is a false option. The antidote to bad
interpretation is not no interpretation, but good interpretation, based on common
The point in this paragraph is that interpretation itself is not the problem, nor is it
something to be avoided. Bad interpretation is what leads us astray. This is precisely why
we need to learn how to interpret -to handle the Scriptures properly.
In his book A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible, Robert Stein writes:
"The importance of interpreting the Bible correctly cannot be overemphasized. The
claim that the Bible is inspired and that it is God's revelation to humanity is
ultimately of little value without some understanding of how that divine revelation
should be interpreted.
When we describe the Bible as "infallible" or "without error," these terms are
meaningless if we do not know how to interpret it. What do we mean when we say
that the Bible is without error? What is it that is infallible? Is it my understanding
of the Bible? Is it yours? … Who gives meaning to a text?" p. 10
It struck me as completely bizarre that the most basic, elementary aspect of properly
understanding the Scriptures is taught incorrectly in our First Principles study. It was
alarming to me that this vitally important point has been taught incorrectly for the past 20
years! How could we be so wrong on something so simple, so basic, so absolutely crucial
to handling the Scriptures accurately?
The following "Rules of Biblical Interpretation" are a good overview of some of the
principles that we should follow. I don't remember where I found them but they illustrate
some of the most important guidelines we must follow to correctly handle the Scriptures:
Rules of Biblical Interpretation
1) The rule of DEFINITION:
What does the word mean? Any study of Scripture must begin with careful study of words.
Define your terms and then keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should
conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require
using a Hebrew/ English or Greek/ English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of
the English translation is understood.
2) The rule of USAGE:
It must be remembered that the Old Testament was written originally by, to and for Jews.
The words and idioms must have been intelligible to them -just as the words of Christ
when talking to them must have been. The majority of the New Testament likewise was
written in a Greco-Roman (and to a lesser extent Jewish) culture and it is important to not
impose our modern usage into our interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret a great
many phrases and histories if one's interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived notions and
cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and ineffectual lesson.
3) The rule of CONTEXT:
The meaning must be gathered from the context. Every word you read must be understood
in the light of the words that come before and after it. Many passages will not be
understood at all, or understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context.
4) The rule of TIME or DISPENSATIONS
An important aspect of understanding the Scriptures is the concept of "dispensations", or
periods of time in which God deals with mankind a certain way. The two primary
dispensations or periods are:
i. The Dispensation of Law
This period covers most of the Old Testament. During this dispensation God held man
accountable to obeying the Law as it was given to Moses on Mount Sinai. This period
lasted until Jesus' death on the cross, or more specifically until Acts Chapter 2 when the
Gospel was preached for the first time.
ii. The Dispensation of Grace
This is the period in which we now live. Being "under grace" means that God no longer
holds us accountable to the Laws and regulations of the Old Covenant.
Our relationship with God, therefore, is fundamentally different than that of the Jews of the
J. Edwin Hartill, in his book Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics, writes the following:
"Unless one understand the dispensations, on cannot understand God's Book, and it
becomes a Book of confusion and contradictions.
Definition -a dispensation is a period of time during which God deals in a
particular way with man in respect to sin and man's responsibility. The word
"dispensation" means "administration" and is first found in 1 Cor. 9: 17.
There are statements in the Bible which apparently are contradictory, and to avoid
confusion one must follow the rules given below in dividing the Truth. Not only
must Truth be divided into dispensations, but it must be divided in the same
dispensation. One must never take truth that belongs to a past dispensation and
bring it up to the present."
5) The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the
Scripture was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can't be properly
appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If the interpreter can have in his
mind what the writer had in his mind when he wrote -without adding any excess baggage
from the interpreter's own culture or society -then the true thought of the Scripture can be
captured resulting in an accurate interpretation.
6) The rule of LOGIC:
Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason
is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given to
us in the form of human language and therefore appeals to human reason -it invites
investigation. It is to be interpreted as we would any other volume: applying the laws of
language and grammatical analysis.
7) The rule of PRECEDENT:
We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no
precedent. Just as a judge's chief occupation is the study of previous cases, so must the
interpreter use precedents in order to determine whether they really support an alleged
8) The rule of UNITY:
The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be construed with reference to the
significance of the whole. An interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture.
An excellent example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. No single passage teaches it, but
it is consistent with the teaching of the whole of Scripture (e. g. the Father, Jesus, and the
Holy Spirit are referred to individually as God; yet the Scriptures elsewhere teach there is
only one God).
9) The rule of INFERENCE:
An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It
derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition
from another proposition. Such inferential facts or propositions are sufficiently binding
when their truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.
Common Errors in Biblical Interpretation
The book Exegetical Fallacies by D. A. Carson goes into great detail about common
mistakes people make when trying to interpret the Scriptures. Here are some of the most
common errors according to the book:
1. Root Word Fallacy
This fallacy assumes that the "root" of a word holds the key to its meaning. The problem is
that the root from which the word comes from is often completely different from the
current meaning of the word in question. For example, the English word "nice" comes
from the Latin word "necius" meaning ignorant. The point is that the etymology of a word
has little bearing on what it actually means.
2. Reading the definitions of English words into the original Greek text
The best example of this mistake is the use of the Greek word "hilaron" which means
"cheerful" (as in God loves a cheerful giver). It is often mentioned that this is where we get
the English word for "hilarious". It is then said that God loves a "hilarious" giver or that we
should give "hilariously". The problem is that the word in Greek means "cheerful" not
"hilarious". The fact that hundreds of years later a word in the English language has been
derived from "hilaron" does not in any way change its original meaning from "cheerful" to
Another example is the Greek word for power, "dynamis" as in Rom 1: 16 (the power of
God). This is where we get the English word for dynamite. Once again, the English word
derived hundreds of years later has no bearing whatsoever on the definition of the Greek
Yet another example is the word for "devoted" in Acts 2: 42. You often hear people teach
that this Greek word is the source for our word for "addicted". The preacher then goes on
to say that what this passage really means is that "the disciples were addicted to the
First of all, lets look at the word in the Greek. The world translated as "devoted" in the
NIV is the Greek word "proskartereo". Strong's Dictionary defines it as follows:
to be earnest towards, i. e. (to a thing) to persevere, be constantly diligent, or (in a
place) to attend assiduously all the exercises, or (to a person) to adhere closely to
(as a servitor):
Vine's Expository Dictionary defines it like this:
"to be steadfast," a strengthened form of kartereo (pros, "towards," intensive,
karteros, "strong"), denotes to continue steadfastly in a thing and give unremitting
care to it, e. g., Rom 13: 6, of rulers in the discharge of their functions. In the Sept.,
Num 13: 21.
Neither of these dictionaries make any mention of the word addiction. The reason for this
is that the word addiction wasn't even invented when Luke wrote the book of Acts.
Now lets take a look at the definition for "addiction". Merriam Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary defines it as follows:
Main Entry: ad· dic· tion
1 : the quality or state of being addicted < addiction to reading >
2 : compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine,
or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms
upon withdrawal; broadly: persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the
user to be harmful
According to Webster, this word didn't come into use until 1599 A. D., almost 1,500 years
after the New Testament was written. Other dictionaries note that the English word for
addict does not come from the Greek word "proskartereo" but rather from the Latin word
My point is simply that you cannot say that "the disciples were addicted to the fellowship".
That's just plain wrong. The word Luke uses in Acts 2: 42 means "devoted" not "addicted".
Why is this such a big deal? Because it shows how we can subtly change the meaning of a
Biblical passage by incorrectly defining key words.
3. Assuming words have just one meaning
Just as in English, Greek words often have many meanings. It is context that determines
which meaning applies. For example, take the English word: "watch". If I assumed that
this word only means "a timepiece usually worn on the wrist" I would have great difficulty
making sense out of the following statements:
-Watch your step.
-The theft of nuclear secrets occurred under Clinton's watch.
"We sometimes fail to appreciate how wide the total semantic range of a word is;
therefore when we come to perform the exegesis of a particular passage, we do not
adequately consider the potential options and unwittingly exclude possibilities that
might include the correct one." P. 57
As an example, consider the use of the word "ekklesia" (translated as "assembly") in Acts
7: 38. You would have a hard time making sense out of this passage if you assume that
ekklesia always refers to the Christian church.
Acts 7: 37-38
"This is that Moses who told the Israelites, `God will send you a prophet like me
from your own people. ' 38 He was in the assembly (" ekklesia" ) in the desert, with
the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers; and he received
living words to pass on to us.
4. Selective use of evidence
Using only a few scriptures to support your views. The answer to this is to study every
verse that has to do with the word or topic we are studying.
"As a general rule, the more complex and/ or emotional the issue, the greater the
tendency to select only part of the evidence, prematurely construct a grid, and so
filter the rest of the evidence through the grid so that it is robbed of any substance."
"What gives the interpreter the right to link certain verses together and not others?
The point is that all such linking eventually produces a grid that affects the
interpretation of other texts." P. 139
5. The false dilemma (the law of the excluded middle)
Framing an issue in terms of either/ or when in fact there may be some perfectly reasonable
middle ground. For example, assuming we're either saved by faith alone or by works. The
fact is that faith and works are not mutually exclusive but rather work together.
6. Failure to recognize distinctions
The fallacy that argues that because X and Y are alike in certain respects they are alike in
a. A dog is an animal
b. A cat is an animal
c. Therefore, a dog is a cat.
7. Bad logic
Thinking that certain arguments are good when a moment's reflection exposes them as
worthless. (see example above)
a. When it rains the sidewalk is wet
b. The sidewalk is wet
c. Therefore, it has rained.
8. Eisogesis -inserting preconceived ideas into the meaning of a passage
"The fallacy in this case lies in thinking that one's own experience and
interpretation of reality are the proper framework for interpreting the biblical text.
In other words, we read our own meaning into the text instead of trying to get the
plain meaning out of the text.
Unless we recognize the "distance" that separates us from the text being studied,
we will overlook differences of outlook or vocabulary and unwittingly we will read
our mental baggage into the text without pausing to ask if that is appropriate. We
are truly prepared to understand a text only after we have understood some of the
differences between what the text is talking about and what we gravitate to on the
same subject." P. 103
9. Purely emotional appeals
"Emotional appeals sometimes mask issues or hide the defectiveness of the
underlying argument. An emotional appeal based on truth reflects sincerity and
conviction; an emotional appeal used as a substitute for truth is worthless. The
fallacy lies in thinking that emotion can substitute for reason, or that it has logical
force." P. 106
An example of an emotional appeal you might here in our church is "if you have a problem
with what I'm saying its because you have a problem with God". I have personally heard
this many times.
10. Unwarranted associative jumps
"This occurs when a word of phrase triggers off an associated idea, concept or
experience that bears no close relation to the text at hand, yet is used to interpret the
text." P. 115
As the tired old clichй goes: "Text without context becomes a pretext for a proof text"
11. False statements
"It is astonishing how often a book or article gives false information; and if we rely
on such a work too heavily, our exegesis will be badly skewed. Go to the primary
12. The non sequitur (Latin for "does not follow")
This refers to conclusions which "do not follow" from the evidence and arguments
presented. Many times it is the result of muddled, sloppy thinking or false premises.
13. Cavalier dismissal
"The fallacy lies in thinking that an opponents argument has been handled when in
fact it has merely been written off by statements such as "that's ridiculous". P. 118
14. Inadequate analogies
Supposing that a particular analogy sheds light on a biblical text when in fact the analogy
is demonstrably inadequate or inappropriate.
15. Misuse of leading words such as "obviously" or similar expressions.
"It is improper to use such expressions when opposing arguments have not been
decisively refuted, and it is a fallacy to think the expressions themselves add
anything substantial to the argument." P. 122
16. Changing the meaning of words
In his excellent book The Twisted Scriptures 1 , Carl Ketcherside identifies two additional
means by which the Scriptures can be misapplied or as he puts it, "twisted":
"Another way by which the scriptures can be twisted is by assigning an acquired
meaning to a word and then proceeding as if this was the meaning accredited to it
when used by the Spirit."
1 Not to be confused with the book entitled Twisted Scriptures by Mary Alice Chrnalogar. Ketcherside's book
was written in 1965 and is available online: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/wcketcherside/tts/index.html
He quotes Alexander Campbell:
"From this source spring most of our doctrinal controversies. Men's opinions,
expressed in their own terms, are often called Bible truths."
The mistake he is pointing out is that of thinking that your own personal definition of a
word is what that word actually means.
Based on my studies over the past two years, I have come to the conclusion that we as a
church routinely and systematically mishandle the Scriptures and as a result, we have
reached incorrect conclusions on a whole range of vitally important issues.
This mishandling is the result of ignoring the time honored principles of biblical
interpretation. It is the result of making virtually all of the errors I have described above.
Copyright © Церковь Христа, МЦХ Все права защищены.
Опубликовано на: 2003-10-12 (5667 Прочтено)[ Назад ]