Romans 9, Predestination & Total Depravity
A Critique of Reformed Theology
Predestination: Addendum 2: My Hermenuetics
IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE #1: When attempting to ascertain the meaning of a certain scripture, the number one and (generally speaking) the only priority is the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT OF THE SCRIPTURE IN QUESTION. In the case of John 3:16, the immediate context does not lend itself to the Calvinist interpretation since “world” includes men who loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. One has to deny the immediate context to say otherwise. When comparing scripture to scripture, one should not randomly compare one scripture to another just because the same word is used. One should MATCH THE SUBJECT of the immediate context as much as possible.
IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE #2: THE FURTHER AWAY YOU GET FROM THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT THE LESS SURE YOU CAN BE ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE “COMPARISON”.
“Further away” is applied to everything, but especially to subject matter. For instance, comparing “world” in John 3:16 and 3:19 is safer than comparing “world” in John 3:16 and 1st John 2:2 because, even though the author is the same the book is different, it was written at a different time. That’s safer than comparing John and Paul because the author is different. That’s safer than comparing John and Isaiah because there’s a huge gap in time between John and Isaiah. All this is in conjunction with KEEPING TO THE SAME SUBJECT as much as possible. Conversely, comparing Isaiah to Paul is entirely appropriate when Paul quotes or refers to Isaiah.
IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE #3: When dealing with a passage that is not clear, where the meaning is not obvious from the immediate context, for example, the “restrainer” passage in 2 Thessalonians, or exactly what “the perfect” is referring to in 1 Cor. 13 or a whole host of eschatalogical issues, THE VALIDITY OF ANY COMPARISON IS HIGHLY SUSPECT BECAUSE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF ONE OF THE THINGS BEING COMPARED, SO YOU CANNOT BE CERTAIN THAT THE “COMPARISON” IS VALID. When comparing any two scriptures one must be certain that the subject matter of both scriptures is the same. If you don’t understand one of the scriptures being compared, how can you do that?
When one compares one scripture to another that has not been compared in the text itself, one has gone beyond scripture. A variable has been introduced, namely, the validity of the comparison. Every time one single variable is added the potential for confusion is increased. Add many variables (i.e. different authors, different book, OT/NT, different subject matter etc. etc. etc.) and the potential for confusion increases exponentially. I am not categorically against using this technique. However, I am very cautious and conservative when doing it. The “comparing scripture to scripture” concept can be helpful but is easily and commonly abused and has resulted in much error. The safest thing is to not compare any scriptures, but to let the immediate context determine the meaning.
Concerning my position about “comparing” scriptures: Whenever I disagree with an interpretation of a certain scripture, I always argue from the immediate context of the passage in question. I seldom, if ever, use one scripture to interpret another unless there is a comparison in the text itself. If I cannot ascertain the meaning of the passage from the immediate context, my position is, “I don’t know what this passage means. It’s not clear.” (Get used to ambiguity.) If I ever do use one scripture to interpret another, I make sure that the subject is the same, and ALL other variables are explainable. That is seldom possible. Comparing a scripture that you do understand to a scripture that you don’t understand makes no sense whatsoever, unless the comparison is in the text itself. Conversely, if you understand the meaning of both scriptures, if the immediate contexts of the respective texts make the meaning of each text clear, then what’s the point of comparing them? The only reason I can think of is to support an argument by quantity. That means you understand BOTH scriptures being compared, independently of each other.
So, in trying to determine what John meant by “world” in John 3:16, in spite of the fact that the immediate context makes it clear, (which, to me, makes it seem silly and a waste of time to continue) and at the risk of confusing the issue, the next step would be to see how John uses the term elsewhere. How DOES John use the term “world” elsewhere? Not just elsewhere – in the same book. Not just in the same book – on the same subject.