THE TRUE BIBLICAL METHOD OF INTERPRETATION

[Eddie Ramos]

Since our method of biblical interpretation is the backbone of our doctrine, would God simply provide a book for us without teaching us how he intended for us to understand what he wrote? It's common knowledge that the most widely known and accepted method of biblical interpretation is the "Literal-Grammatical-Historical Method". This means that most doctrines people hold to be true are built upon this foundation.

My first question, to those who hold to this method is, can you provide any scripture that teaches this method as the correct method of biblical interpretation? For example, Timothy 2:15 tells us to rightly divide the Word of Truth, but we can't infer that this means to look for the Literal-Grammatical-Historical Method. It simply says to rightly divide it. And who can teach us how God intends for us to rightly divide it, if not the one whose very words these are? God himself.

It seems that so much trust has been placed on the scholars and theologians and church leaders who've handed us a method of hermeneutic that they've come up with, but that isn't actually derived from the scriptures themselves. Does anyone find that strange? But did you know that God has indeed provided us with scriptures upon scriptures that teach us just how he intended for us to approach His Word and rightly divide it?

I will begin by posting just a few and expounding from there as the conversations progress.

1. The Bible is a spiritual book, therefore, in looking for the literal understanding of a passage as our source of truth, we have missed the mark and the intended meaning of the deeper truth that God has provided, which is the gospel message.

Romans 7:14 (KJV 1900)
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

2. As a spiritual book, the Bible teaches us that we must compare, not literal with literal, but spiritual with spiritual if we expect the Holy Ghost to teach.

1 Corinthians 2:13 (KJV 1900)
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

3. When we merely search for the Literal-Grammatical-Historical rendering of a passage, then we will miss the spiritual meanings contained within the Word of God. And that is exactly how God designed His Word, to conceal spiritual truth. God's hermeneutic is by design and easily rejected by those who trust more in man's wisdom than in God's.

Isaiah 28:9–10 (KJV 1900)

9  Whom shall he teach knowledge?
And whom shall he make to understand doctrine?
Them that are weaned from the milk,
And drawn from the breasts.
10  For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept;
Line upon line, line upon line;
Here a little, and there a little:

[myth-one.com]

The Bible, as a whole, focuses the key element to forgiveness of our sins (i.e. salvation) to death which satisfies the demands of the law.

That is incorrect!

Under the New Testament Covenant, mankind came under the grace of Jesus Christ for our salvation, not our works to fulfill the law. So sin no longer controls our salvation:

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Being that you did not address a single verse which contradicts your doctrine, . . .

I cannot find a single verse which contradicts Romans 6:14. So I have nothing to address.

Under the New Testament Covenant, there is one, and only one, requirement for gaining everlasting life. That requirement is believing in Jesus Christ:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

If you can find any verse which supports your belief that forgiveness of sin gains one everlasting life under the New Testament Covenant, please post it.

[Eddie Ramos]

My initial question hasn't received a direct response from the scriptures as I had expected. The reason for this is because there is not a single passage in the Bible which teaches that the Bible is to be taken literally and at face value. Or that we are to separate interpretation methods based on who wrote what book and what manner of book was written. People do it simply because their logic tells them to do so. Human logic tells us that the entire Bible must have been given to us in plain speech so as to allow every reader to clearly understand what God's message is for mankind. But our logic is sin tainted and our understanding is limited when compared to an infinite and perfect God. This is why God had to be the one to teach us (through His very Word, the Bible) just how he expected us to understand his Words. But because the biblical methods of interpretation, either cannot be seen by the reader or are ignored, and men have developed each their own methods, then what we have is exactly what has been posted so far in this thread, a mixture of doctrines which not only conflict with one another but with themselves as well.

My first question still remains on the table for anyone willing to answer (see OP). But now I would like to add an additional question(s):

How many verses are necessary before we can safely conclude that our doctrine is true?
Does one verse provide enough biblical justification for your doctrine? How about a few?

Many choose to live by the old adage that says, “the Bible says it, I believe it, and that’s good enough for me”. But is this true? Is this how we obtain biblical justification for our doctrines? Well, the more important question is, what constitutes biblical justification? It isn’t finding one or even a few verses which seem to support your doctrine, it’s when the entire Bible agrees with any doctrine you hold to be true. And so, when any part of the Bible disagrees with your doctrine and interpretation of your supporting verses, then you are in error.

It doesn’t matter who you are or how well versed you are or how strong your conviction is, if the Bible, as a whole, does not agree with your doctrines, then you are faced with either making correction to your doctrine or refusing correction. Accepting correction from the Bible demonstrates humility, which is a characteristic of a child of God, while rejecting correction demonstrates the true condition of the heart.

I will continue to debate the side that the only method of true biblical interpretation is found within the Bible itself and not within man's logic (unless someone can put forth some scriptures that teach otherwise). I will also debate the side that complete biblical harmony (agreement) with any doctrine we hold to be true is the only way to make sure we are holding to a correct doctrine.

[myth-one.com]

The Bible, as a whole, focuses the key element to forgiveness of our sins (i.e. salvation) to death which satisfies the demands of the law.

But the Bible clearly states that under the New Testament Covenant sin no longer controls our salvation:

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

It doesn’t matter who you are or how well versed you are or how strong your conviction is, if the Bible, as a whole, does not agree with your doctrines, then you are faced with either making correction to your doctrine or refusing correction. Accepting correction from the Bible demonstrates humility, which is a characteristic of a child of God, while rejecting correction demonstrates the true condition of the heart.

Do you intend to accept correction from the Bible or refuse correction from the Bible on your incorrect doctrine regarding salvation?

[Eddie Ramos]

The Bible, as a whole, focuses the key element to forgiveness of our sins (i.e. salvation) to death which satisfies the demands of the law.

But the Bible clearly states that under the New Testament Covenant sin no longer controls our salvation:

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

It doesn’t matter who you are or how well versed you are or how strong your conviction is, if the Bible, as a whole, does not agree with your doctrines, then you are faced with either making correction to your doctrine or refusing correction. Accepting correction from the Bible demonstrates humility, which is a characteristic of a child of God, while rejecting correction demonstrates the true condition of the heart.

Do you intend to accept correction from the Bible or refuse correction from the Bible on your incorrect doctrine regarding salvation?

That which you think the Bible clearly states must be weighed against all that the Bible has to say on the matter. And since we've begun this discussion, you have refused to acknowledge and address any scriptures I have given you to show that without death there can be no forgiveness of sins. The verse you are clinging to to prove your point is a passage that applies only to those who have already become saved and not to all of mankind.

The whole chapter is addressing those who were not saved and were dead in sins and have become saved. After salvation, the true believers are dead to sin and not automatically after the cross.

Romans 6:1–23 (KJV 1900)
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead (in Christ) is freed from sin. 8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. 19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. 20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Verse 22 clarifies who is in view here and it's not the whole of mankind, it's only those who have become saved. They (not the world) have been made free from sin. They (not the world) have become the servants of God. They (not the world) have their fruit unto holiness. And they (not the world) have everlasting life. So, it's only those who have become saved who are under grace, not the whole world. The rest of the world is still under the law as long as they are alive and unsaved.

Romans 7:1–4 (KJV 1900)
Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Who has become dead to the law? Has the whole world or the brethren? The Bible teaches that only those who have become saved have become dead to the law, the unsaved of the world are still married to it.

So, I have no problem with accepting correction from the Bible. What I do have a problem with is someone stating that a particular doctrine is true based on one or two "plain" verses, rather answering all the scriptures they were provided that contradicts them. And by the way, there is no verse that contradicts Romans 6:14, but plenty of verses (which you were provided) which contradict your understanding of Romans 6:14. So, I hope you will take the time to review the previous posts and perhaps show us how they harmonize with your doctrine.

[Eddie Ramos]

Do you intend to accept correction from the Bible or refuse correction from the Bible on your incorrect doctrine regarding salvation?

Also, since this discussion with you is veering off the original OP, I created another thread titled "Dispensationalism is an incorrect doctrine". There we can lay each passage out in detail if you wish. But here, as much as possible, it would be nice to keep it on the main focus of the topic. A topic which you have yet to provide scriptures for which instructs you how you are to approach and interpret the Bible. That would go a long way in understanding how you are coming up with your interpretations. Thank you.

[myth-one.com]

The Bible, as a whole, focuses the key element to forgiveness of our sins (i.e. salvation) to death which satisfies the demands of the law.

But the Bible directly negates your doctrine on salvation:

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

It doesn’t matter who you are or how well versed you are or how strong your conviction is, if the Bible, as a whole, does not agree with your doctrines, then you are faced with either making correction to your doctrine or refusing correction. Accepting correction from the Bible demonstrates humility, which is a characteristic of a child of God, while rejecting correction demonstrates the true condition of the heart.

Since you disagree with the Bible on this issue, do you intend to take you own advice and accept correction from the Bible or refuse correction from the Bible on your incorrect doctrine regarding salvation?

Also, since this discussion with you is veering off the original OP, I created another thread titled "Dispensationalism is an incorrect doctrine". There we can lay each passage out in detail if you wish. But here, as much as possible, it would be nice to keep it on the main focus of the topic. A topic which you have yet to provide scriptures for which instructs you how you are to approach and interpret the Bible. That would go a long way in understanding how you are coming up with your interpretations. Thank you.

By dodging the question once again, you definitely are not accepting the biblical correction offered to you by God -- which you suggest that others should accept.

In your words, you are "demonstrating the true condition of your heart."

<=================== My "approach" to the Bible. ===========================>

I do not "interpret" the Bible.

I pray to God asking Him to open my understanding of the scriptures, believing that He will do so.

Then I read the literal English translations of the scriptures, starting at Genesis 1:1.

Sometimes I take one major belief taught to me by various teachers and churches and begin reading the Bible from page 1 looking to confirm or deny that belief.

The first belief I chose was that "humans are born with immortal souls which will live eternally in one of two places -- heaven or hell."

That belief was proven false before reaching chapter four of Genesis.

[Eddie Ramos]

<=================== My "approach" to the Bible. ===========================>

I do not "interpret" the Bible.

I pray to God asking Him to open my understanding of the scriptures, believing that He will do so.

Then I read the literal English translations of the scriptures, starting at Genesis 1:1.

Sometimes I take one major belief taught to me by various teachers and churches and begin reading the Bible from page 1 looking to confirm or deny that belief.

The first belief I chose was that "humans are born with immortal souls which will live eternally in one of two places -- heaven or hell."

That belief was proven false before reaching chapter four of Genesis.

Ok, thanks for answering the thread topic. Praying to God to open up our understanding is certainly good and biblical.

Psalm 119:18 (KJV 1900)
18  Open thou mine eyes,
That I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.

But then when you approach the Bible and take the literal English translations of scriptures, what method do you use from there? Do you take the literal versions for what they plainly state (If so, do you have any scriptures which teach this method)? Or do you look for the spiritual meaning behind everything you are reading, since the Word of God is spiritual?

Romans 7:14 (KJV 1900)
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

John 6:63 (KJV 1900)
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Do you compare spiritual with spiritual in order to arrive at a conclusion which harmonizes with the whole Bible? Because this is the method God has established in order for the Holy Spirit to teach us.

1 Corinthians 2:13 (KJV 1900)
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.


Lastly, if you do not interpret the Bible, then is that your way of confirming that you take it at face value for what it says? And if you do, then are you the one who determines and chooses when to take it at face value and when not to? For example:

Mark 9:43 (KJV 1900)
And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

OR

Deuteronomy 10:16 (KJV 1900)
Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Most people wo take the Word of God at face value make themselves the authority as to when they will do so and when they wont. That's why this method is found no where in the Bible, because the Bible itself interprets the Bible. So, the Bible indeed has to be interpreted. And since it has to be interpreted, we have to understand who is the sole authority in guiding us on how to interpret what we are reading and studying, and it's the Word of God itself.

Genesis 40:8 (KJV 1900)
8 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

Proverbs 1:6 (KJV 1900)
6  To understand a proverb, and the interpretation;
The words of the wise, and their dark sayings.

Ecclesiastes 8:1 (KJV 1900)
Who is as the wise man? and who knoweth the interpretation of a thing (of a WORD)? a man’s wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the boldness of his face shall be changed.

So, there is ample evidence that the Bible must be interpreted by the reader, but correct interpretation is not private in any way, it must always come from God and His Word as we rightly divide the Word of Truth and compare spiritual with spiritual.

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to Eddie Ramos in post #27]

I believe the Bible, without any private interpretations.

[Eddie Ramos]

[Replying to Eddie Ramos in post #27]

I believe the Bible, without any private interpretations.

Very well. Then the Bible will determine if that is so for each one of us, as it will either agree or contradict any doctrine we believe to be true.

1 Corinthians 14:32 (KJV 1900)
And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to Eddie Ramos in post #27]

I believe the Bible, without any private interpretations.

Very well. Then the Bible will determine if that is so for each one of us, as it will either agree or contradict any doctrine we believe to be true.

Here's an example:

The Bible, as a whole, focuses the key element to forgiveness of our sins (i.e. salvation) to death which satisfies the demands of the law.

But the Bible directly contradicts Eddie's doctrine on salvation:

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

So Eddie will have to create a private interpretation of Romans 6:14 for Eddie to believe the Bible. Has Eddie started yet?