Comparing Scripture with Scripture? (The Algebra method of Bible Interpretion)

[outdeep]

In another thread, I explained an answer to a question about Calvinism:

Generally, a 4 1/2 Calvinist means that the pastor has problems with the third point of TULIP of "limited atonement".  This means that Jesus did not die for everyone but only for the elect.  Or, put it strongly, he had no intention of dying for someone who God did not predestine to be saved.  After all, dying for someone who is going to be condemned is meaningless.  The reason folks struggle with this point is that they have a hard time reading John 3:16 "For God so loved the world" as "For God so loved the world of the elect" which is the explanation Calvinsts generally give to align this verse with their teaching.

Verne responded as follows:

A more simple and precise argument is to simply ask whether there are other passages where "world" is used, but clearly does not refer to each and every single human. No well instructed Bible student need change the Scripture to defend the doctrine of limited atonement. It is self-evident. 
Verne

This lead me to thinking about a typical way we learned to interprete Scriptures in the Assembly and how my view have changed in this regard in the following discussion:


The typical argument that is given to argue that the plain reading of John 3:16 is really “For God So Loved the World of the Elect” is to look at John 12:19 where the Pharasees say “Look how the whole world has gone after him!”  The Pharasees cannot be saying that every single person has gone after Jesus, so therefore the word “world” cannot mean everyone in the world, but only some people in the world.

This practice, where we compare the same word in two completely different context to derive a unified meaning, was used often in the Assembly and still is in other Christian groups.  I used to do it myself where I would look up a word in the Vine, and compare how it is used and come up with a profound point about the word. 

I call it the algebra method of Bible interpretation because it assumes if you have the same variable (or word) in two different places, they mean the exact same thing.

I no longer believe that it is a valid way of interpreting words in the Bible as you cannot apply algebra to language.  You do not derive the meaning of the word by looking at how it is used in a completely different context.  Rather, you need to understand the meaning of the word based upon how it is used in the context you are studying.  To illustrate, I can say the following:

Tom is going to conquer the world.   (Here, the reader understands, that Tom is not going to conquer every person in the world, but hopes to have a productive day with those he interacts with.)

Susan loves the world.   (This could mean that she loves the environment and nature or it could mean that she loves a non-Christian secular way of thinking.)

Bob Pierce had a burden for the world.  (Mr. Pierce probably had a desire to see every single person he met to be saved, or at least as many as he could.  Perhaps he is talking about every person and perhaps not, but certainly more people than with Tom.)

Nuclear warfare would destroy the world.   (Every single person as well as all vegetation is toast.)

In each case, the word “world” meant something different but one doesn’t understand the meaning by comparing the word “world” to how it is used in a different context.  Rather, the word “world” is understood by the context in which it resides.

If a disinterested student (that is, one with nothing to gain and nothing to prove) were to read John 3:16, she would most likely conclude that “for God so loved the world” simply means that God loves all of humanity.  It wouldn’t be until she took some theology courses and was taught that Jesus only died for the elect that she would reason that God wouldn’t love the people that he had already predestined to hell.  Therefore, in keeping with her theology, she would begin to understand the passage as meaning, “God so loved the world of the elect.”  But it is highly improbably that she would understand the passage this way by simply reading it without a theological bias.

[Oscar]

Most excellent Dude!

You can bank on that.

Bank?

1. A financial institution.

2. The earth on either side of a river or stream.

3. The action of a physical object in which it rebounds from contact with another object in a manner in which the angel of inciidence equals the angle of reaction.

4. To incline relative to the horizon.

Actually, "bank" in the phrase above has a colloquial meaning drawn from the security of a sound financial institution.  It means "you can have a high degree of confidence in that."

This meaning is not obtainable by the "algebra" method at all.

In the case of John 3:16 the "Calvinists"  use it to limit the meaning of the word "world" to the elect.

The problem is that the method is bogus.   

Even Calvin didn't believe this!

In his commentary on Mark 14:24 where it says, "this is the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," Calvin wrote, "The word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race."

Thomas Maddux
Virulent Dog

[Jem]

Dave, wonderful post. I also used to be a W. E. Vine word masher, but no more.

Thanks, we needed that!

[vernecarty]

In another thread, I explained an answer to a question about Calvinism:


The typical argument that is given to argue that the plain reading of John 3:16 is really “For God So Loved the World of the Elect” is to look at John 12:19 where the Pharasees say “Look how the whole world has gone after him!”  The Pharasees cannot be saying that every single person has gone after Jesus, so therefore the word “world” cannot mean everyone in the world, but only some people in the world.

While I understand the point you are making Dave, the fact of the matter is that the verse that you cite is one of  the  most commonly cited by folk who subscribe to the idea of a universal atonement. Your representation that those who do not think so change the reading as you suggest is a bit strange to me frankly, for the question about what the verse means is raised in response to the idea that it teaches Universalism.
Here are a few places where  Kosmos is used that one could assume a universal view.

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.
John 3:16

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
John 3:17


And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 2:2

Here are a few questions to consider.

Let us assume that John 3: 16 and 17 actually teach that Christ atoned for the sin of every human who ever lived.

Can we then assume that  1 John 2:2 is teaching that every human will be saved?
If you do not believe that is what 1 John 2:2 is teaching, why not?
It does clearly say that He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world does it not?
If you do not believe that John 2:2  teaches universal salvation, your interpretation of John 3: 16 is clearly inconsistent.
This is why this view is referred to sometimes as inconsistent particularism.
Your only logically defensible position is that of unrestricted universalism, a view held by some, and though unbiblical, is at least consistent.
Most folk reject it because they do not believe the Bible teaches everyone will be saved. They are right.

This practice, where we compare the same word in two completely different context to derive a unified meaning, was used often in the Assembly and still is in other Christian groups.  I used to do it myself where I would look up a word in the Vine, and compare how it is used and come up with a profound point about the word. 

I call it the algebra method of Bible interpretation because it assumes if you have the same variable (or word) in two different places, they mean the exact same thing.

I no longer believe that it is a valid way of interpreting words in the Bible as you cannot apply algebra to language.  You do not derive the meaning of the word by looking at how it is used in a completely different context.  Rather, you need to understand the meaning of the word based upon how it is used in the context you are studying.  To illustrate, I can say the following:

Tom is going to conquer the world.   (Here, the reader understands, that Tom is not going to conquer every person in the world, but hopes to have a productive day with those he interacts with.)

Susan loves the world.   (This could mean that she loves the environment and nature or it could mean that she loves a non-Christian secular way of thinking.)

Bob Pierce had a burden for the world.  (Mr. Pierce probably had a desire to see every single person he met to be saved, or at least as many as he could.  Perhaps he is talking about every person and perhaps not, but certainly more people than with Tom.)

Nuclear warfare would destroy the world.   (Every single person as well as all vegetation is toast.)

In each case, the word “world” meant something different but one doesn’t understand the meaning by comparing the word “world” to how it is used in a different context.  Rather, the word “world” is understood by the context in which it resides.

If a disinterested student (that is, one with nothing to gain and nothing to prove) were to read John 3:16, she would most likely conclude that “for God so loved the world” simply means that God loves all of humanity.  It wouldn’t be until she took some theology courses and was taught that Jesus only died for the elect that she would reason that God wouldn’t love the people that he had already predestined to hell.  Therefore, in keeping with her theology, she would begin to understand the passage as meaning, “God so loved the world of the elect.”  But it is highly improbably that she would understand the passage this way by simply reading it without a theological bias.

No disagreement here. I just fail to see how your observations have any bearing on whether or not John 3:16 teaches that Christ atoned for the sin of every human who ever lived. That is really the question.
I am not as eager to talk about the doctrine of particularism as I used to be. Either you accept it or you do not. It has a tendency to result in emotional rather that theological argument...I can't believe that God would..etc etc....
Verne

[vernecarty]

Most excellent Dude!

The problem is that the method is bogus.   

Even Calvin didn't believe this!

In his commentary on Mark 14:24 where it says, "this is the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," Calvin wrote, "The word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race."

Thomas Maddux
Virulent Dog

Let me try to explain why this line of reasoning is not only dangerous, but also cheapens the gospel message. I generally fail miserably at this and probably should leave it alone.
Does God love the damned?
Some of you will say of course He does. He loves everybody.
One way of looking at love is that it does what is in the person who is loved best interests.
Would somebody please explain to me how a person whom God loves, and for whom His Son shed His precious blood could end up in a place like Hell?
The smart answer from some of you will immediately be: They won't!
You figure it out...
Verne

[M2]

Verne,

Discussions like this are like the Republican/Democrat debates during election time.  People have usually settled in a camp and the subject is not open for discussion so much as for each to voice their POV, unless some agenda being presented touches them personally.

Calvin/Armenian creation/evolution Republican/Democrat
I tried doing one of those private discussions, like you suggested, with someone (not Brent, Mark or Lenore) this week and I had to abandon the discussion because we got so caught in the weeds and so off track.  Discussions do tend to go off track sometimes, but with some they always do and it becomes virtually impossible to bring it back on track.

TULIP was not laid out by Calvin, but by those who were responding to a rebuttal from the Armenian camp, therefore quoting Calvin does not help the discussion re. limited atonement.  Since not everyone gets saved the 'application' of the atonement is limited, so the Calvinists do have a point.  Calvin did not write the final word on Calvinism , as Luther is not the final authority on salvation by grace.  The Calvinists have a perspective that God is sovereign and in some mysterious way our free will is not compromised.  While the Armenians say that we have free will and in some mysterious way God's sovereignity is not compromised.  When we get to heaven most of us 'elect' who debate this matter will be asking God to settle the debate.  If I want a good theological discussion the Calvinists definitely know their Bibles and one will get some good sound teaching in a Reform church or from a pastor who is 4.5 Calvinist in his POV eh??

Marcia

[vernecarty]

Verne,

Discussions like this are like the Republican/Democrat debates during election time.  People have usually settled in a camp and the subject is not open for discussion so much as for each to voice their POV, unless some agenda being presented touches them personally.

Calvin/Armenian creation/evolution Republican/Democrat
I tried doing one of those private discussions, like you suggested, with someone (not Brent, Mark or Lenore) this week and I had to abandon the discussion because we got so caught in the weeds and so off track.  Discussions do tend to go off track sometimes, but with some they always do and it becomes virtually impossible to bring it back on track.

TULIP was not laid out by Calvin, but by those who were responding to a rebuttal from the Armenian camp, therefore quoting Calvin does not help the discussion re. limited atonement.  Since not everyone gets saved the 'application' of the atonement is limited, so the Calvinists do have a point.  Calvin did not write the final word on Calvinism , as Luther is not the final authority on salvation by grace.  The Calvinists have a perspective that God is sovereign and in some mysterious way our free will is not compromised.  While the Armenians say that we have free will and in some mysterious way God's sovereignity is not compromised.  When we get to heaven most of us 'elect' who debate this matter will be asking God to settle the debate.  If I want a good theological discussion the Calvinists definitely know their Bibles and one will get some good sound teaching in a Reform church or from a pastor who is 4.5 Calvinist in his POV eh??

Marcia

I am afraid you are right on the money Maricia. I don't talk about this too much any more for while I know there are difficult questions surrounding the topic, I find it frustrating that often those dismissing limited atonement out of hand do not understand that they also limit it by their own belief in limited redemption. I certainly do not have all the answers, but it is clear to me from some of the comments I hear that some folk have not really thought out their position very carefully. There are really only three  positions one can logically take on this subject:

Consistent particularism, Inconsistent particularism, or Unrestricted Universalism.

That's it.

 Calvinist and Armenian labels are actually quite irrelevant and are thrown out by follks who simply display their ignorance of a true grasp of the theological issue, no offense.

At least folk arguing for a particular position should be clearly aware of exactly what it is they are arguing.
It is a remarkable postulate to argue, that God intended in His design of the plan of salvation, to redeem every man woman and child, paid the full price for such a plan, and then ultimately fails to achieve this objective. Failure is the right word. God never fails.
The unrestricted universalists are far more logical in the position that they take. They argue that God did indeed design the atonement to pay for the sin of all of humanity, and that the denoument of such a design will be the ultimate redemption of every sinner, in accordance with His purpose..
I appreciate your comments.  
Verne

[vernecarty]

In another thread, I explained an answer to a question about Calvinism:


This lead me to thinking about a typical way we learned to interprete Scriptures in the Assembly and how my view have changed in this regard in the following discussion:


The typical argument that is given to argue that the plain reading of John 3:16 is really “For God So Loved the World of the Elect” is to look at John 12:19 where the Pharasees say “Look how the whole world has gone after him!”  The Pharasees cannot be saying that every single person has gone after Jesus, so therefore the word “world” cannot mean everyone in the world, but only some people in the world.

This practice, where we compare the same word in two completely different context to derive a unified meaning, was used often in the Assembly and still is in other Christian groups.  I used to do it myself where I would look up a word in the Vine, and compare how it is used and come up with a profound point about the word. 

I call it the algebra method of Bible interpretation because it assumes if you have the same variable (or word) in two different places, they mean the exact same thing.

I no longer believe that it is a valid way of interpreting words in the Bible as you cannot apply algebra to language.  You do not derive the meaning of the word by looking at how it is used in a completely different context.  Rather, you need to understand the meaning of the word based upon how it is used in the context you are studying.  To illustrate, I can say the following:

Tom is going to conquer the world.   (Here, the reader understands, that Tom is not going to conquer every person in the world, but hopes to have a productive day with those he interacts with.)

Susan loves the world.   (This could mean that she loves the environment and nature or it could mean that she loves a non-Christian secular way of thinking.)

Bob Pierce had a burden for the world.  (Mr. Pierce probably had a desire to see every single person he met to be saved, or at least as many as he could.  Perhaps he is talking about every person and perhaps not, but certainly more people than with Tom.)

Nuclear warfare would destroy the world.   (Every single person as well as all vegetation is toast.)

In each case, the word “world” meant something different but one doesn’t understand the meaning by comparing the word “world” to how it is used in a different context.  Rather, the word “world” is understood by the context in which it resides.

If a disinterested student (that is, one with nothing to gain and nothing to prove) were to read John 3:16, she would most likely conclude that “for God so loved the world” simply means that God loves all of humanity.  It wouldn’t be until she took some theology courses and was taught that Jesus only died for the elect that she would reason that God wouldn’t love the people that he had already predestined to hell.  Therefore, in keeping with her theology, she would begin to understand the passage as meaning, “God so loved the world of the elect.”  But it is highly improbably that she would understand the passage this way by simply reading it without a theological bias.

I invoked my twenty four hour rule before responding to the more serious point made in Dave's post.
I want to say at the beginning that I am not certain it was Dave's intent to lampoon any Christian, no matter his level of education, who makes a serious  attempt to study and understand the word of God.
Let me be quite frank though. Referring to the practice of checking a good Bible dictionary to get a better grasp of what a Biblical word means as the "algerbraic method" strikes me as being contemptuous of due diligence.
I recognize that we cannot all be scholars, but to ridicule the practice of studyng God's Word, whatever form that may take, seems to me to be counterproductive. The ignorance of the Scriptures evidenced by many Christians today is nothing short of apalling.
We need to encourage Christians to use the brain God gave them.
So what if someone makes an occasional error of interpretation?
The only people who never fail, are those who never attempt anything.
I was sorely disspointed to hear a comment like this from someone I respect.
Verne

[outdeep]

Just to keep things on track, I didn't start this thread to begin yet another tired discussion about the strengths and/or failures of Calvinism.  My focus was on a method of Bible interpretation that is used in Christendom generally and in the Assembly specifically.

This method has been used by Calvinists (as the Calvinist book I read that used the John 12:19 argument I outlined below) and non-Calvinists alike.

I do believe a corollary of this discussion is this:  Everyone tends to develop over time a theological system whether it is Calvinism, the Assembly beliefs, or something less formal.  Over time, we begin to interpret some passages, not as disinterested readers, but based upon our theological assumptions.  We focus on verses that strengthen our view ("no one comes to me unless the Father draws him") and we read ideas into the text of verses that cause difficulty to our view ("For God so loved the world" really means only the "world of the elect" even though no one would read it that way without being taught).  

This doesn't mean the theological system is faulty.  It just means that all theological systems have problems that must be dealt with via imposing assumptions upon the text as opposed to being (as the our former leader would say) "plain readers".

[outdeep]

I invoked my twenty four hour rule before responding to the more serious point made in Dave's post.
I want to say at the beginning that I am not certain it was Dave's intent to lampoon any Christian, no matter his level of education, who makes a serious  attempt to study and understand the word of God.
Let me be quite frank though. Referring to the practice of checking a good Bible dictionary to get a better grasp of what a Biblical word means as the "algerbraic method" strikes me as being contemptuous of due diligence.
I recognize that we cannot all be scholars, but to ridicule the practice of studyng God's Word, whatever form that may take, seems to me to be counterproductive. The ignorance of the Scriptures evidenced by many Christians today is nothing short of apalling.
We need to encourage Christians to use the brain God gave them.
So what if someone makes an occasional error of interpretation?
The only people who never fail, are those who never attempt anything.
I was sorely disspointed to hear a comment like this from someone I respect.
Verne

I will try and stay off this to allow others to discuss this, but I wanted to make a note to avert a misunderstanding.

I am not saying it is wrong to look up a word in a Bible dictionary in order to better ascertain its meaning.  In fact, it is very proper.

What I am saying is to take a word in one context and then use a tool such as a Vine or some other index to find the word in a completely different context and then assume that the word has the exact same meaning, scope, and nuisance is not a good method of study in my opinion.

[vernecarty]

I am not saying it is wrong to look up a word in a Bible dictionary in order to better ascertain its meaning.  In fact, it is very proper.

What I am saying is to take a word in one context and then use a tool such as a Vine or some other index to find the word in a completely different context and then assume that the word has the exact same meaning, scope, and nuisance is not a good method of study in my opinion.

I could not agree more.
While I understand our personal biases can and sometimes do lead us to read Scripture in a way that confirms an established viewpoint, this is the exact reason that honest and open exchange among intellectually honest folk is so important. I do not think we should sanction out and out nonsense simply for the sake of being nice.
I have no patience with folk who feign erudition when they have plainly not done their homework. By the same token, hearing the point of vew of brethren who have spent time in the Scriptures is one of the best ways to have our own biases pointed out to us. I appreciate your perspective and that of others for it helps me to sometimes rethink and/or clarify my own.
Verne

[M2]

I am afraid you are right on the money Maricia. I don't talk about this too much any more for while I know there are difficult questions surrounding the topic, I find it frustrating that often those dismissing limited atonement out of hand do not understand that they also limit it by their own belief in limited redemption. I certainly do not have all the answers, but it is clear to me from some of the comments I hear that some folk have not really thought out their position very carefully. There are realy only three  positions one can logically take on this subject. Consistent particualrism, Inconsistent particularism, or Unrestricted Universalism. That's it.
At least folk arguing for a particular position should be clearly aware of exactly what it is they are arguing.
It is a remarkable postulate to argue, that God intended in His design of the plan of salvation, to redeem every man woman and child, paid the full price for such a plan, and then ultimatly fails to achieve this objective. Failure is the right word. God never fails.
The unrestricted universalists are far more logical in the position that they take. They argue that God did indeed design the atonement to pay for the sin of all of humanity, and that the denoument of such a design will be the ultimate redemption of every sinner, in accordance with His purpose..
I appreciate your comments.  
Verne

Hi Verne,

Most of my knowledge on the topic was gleaned from this BB and Bible Studies at my church.  I have not studied or read up on the subject on my own time , so I trust that you will enlighten us if you feel that it will be profitable to do so.

Marcia

[vernecarty]

Hi Verne,

Most of my knowledge on the topic was gleaned from this BB and Bible Studies at my church.  I have not studied or read up on the subject on my own time , so I trust that you will enlighten us if you feel that it will be profitable to do so.

Marcia

As I have stated, I am under no illusion that I have answers to all the difficult questions.
I only have to listen to someone talk about this for a few seconds before it becomes clear to me whether or not they even fully understand the problem. Emotive assertions are made on both sides of this argument no doubt, but there are few that I have heard who in my view have excercised the intellectual discipline to try and understand what positions it is possible to take on the question and what the inherent limitations are of such a choice. I know for example, that someone understands what they are talking about when they look me in the eye and plainly say:
I do not choose to limit the extent of the atonement because I hold that Christ paid for the sin of every single human. I also recognize that I am therefore limiting the atonement's efficacy in those who perish, despite the fact that Christ paid for their sin.
So you see, some time ago I realised that I as a believer had to decide how I personally would choose to view the atonement as being limited.
Who among us, is prepared to argue that the blood of Christ lacks power to save any?
I therefore limit the atonement's extent.
This does less violence to the work of Christ than to limit its efficacy.
It does no violence at all, if we conclude that God saves exactly whom He intends to.
He  gets all the glory.
We get none.
Verne