http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Fundamental_Baptist
My intent is to take each "attribute" one at a time.
Number One: Literal Interpretation is fundamental to our Faith.
Obviously, if someone interprets the Scripture correctly a profound positive impact on their faith will be made. On the other hand if someone interprets the Scripture in error, it could be dangerous. So what is the best method of interpretation? Good question. I will attempt to give a brief overview of the most commonly accepted, in IFB circles, method and also contrast it to a method that I think has some positive aspects.
Literal interpretation is fairly straight forward. I say fairly because there are actually two main ideas in literal interpretation. One is that each word of the Bible should be taken at face value. Sounds good right? Well here is where the problem arises. If we were to actually take the literal meaning of each word we would believe some interesting things...Take for example
Matthew 26:26Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (ESV)
If we were to take each word of these verses literally, then we should hold to the doctrine of Transubstantiation (which I hope to address in a future post.)
Also consider
Isaiah 11:12 He will raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the banished of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (ESV)
Taking each word of this verse literally would lead one to believe that the earth has four corners, therefore is flat.
Or this
Job 9:6 who shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble;
literally suggests that the earth has pillars.
Therefore to interpret the Scriptures as strictly literal can cause significant misrepresentations of what God is conveying in His Word.
The second idea or variation in literal interpretation is what is known as grammatical-historical. This view of interpretation is, in my mind, the most accurate method of interpretation. Basically, the grammatical-historical method of hermeneutics proposes that the Bible still be interpreted literally but that each verse should be interpreted in it's historical and grammatical context. In essence, a distinction is made between verses that are poetry (i.e. Psalms), verses the are Parables (a main method of teaching held to by Christ), verses that are proverbial (Proverbs), etc... Also, the historical context can dictate how the verse should be interpreted. An interesting example of this can be seen in Revelations 3:15-16
15 “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. (ESV)
A common interpretation of this would be that God is stating that Christians are hot (on fire for Him) or cold (uninterested). However, let us consider the city of Laodicea at that time. Laodicea was bordered by two cities, Hierapolis and Colossae. Hierapolis was known for its hot water due to its nearby hot spring and Colossae was known for its cold water due to its nearby cold water spring. Laodicea, on the other hand, had water carried in by an aqueduct from a spring 5 miles away. By the time the water had reached the city, it was likely to be lukewarm. Interpreting these verses in this historical context suggest not that hot is good and cold is bad but that both hot and cold are good and lukewarm is bad. Does interpreting the verses in this context make an enormous difference? Not necessarily but it certainly could in other areas.
As I was considering these facts, I was overwhelmed with the probability of interpreting the Bible incorrectly and making detrimental mistakes in my study. How can we know where and how to interpret each verse? How do we know what the appropriate grammatical or historical context is? This is especially difficult since I am unable to read Old Testament Hebrew or New Testament Greek. It certainly is easy to be overwhelmed but we can find comfort in one fact. If we open God's Word humbly and with a penitent/thirsty heart and continue to ask God for clarity and understanding He will open our eyes! Also, there certainly is nothing wrong with seeking the expertise of those who have dedicated their lives to the study of Hebrew and Greek and have spent years pouring over passages of the Scripture. I think Grudem put it very well in his "Systematic Theology" when he stated the following:
"I do not mean to suggest that the activity of interpreting Scripture should be an individualistic one: God will often use the writings of others or the personal advice of others to enable us to understand his Word rightly. The main point is that by whatever means, and primarily through the means of reading Scripture for themselves, Christians should expect that they will be enabled by God to understand the teachings of Scripture rightly."
So what is the verdict? Certainly an appropriate interpretation of the Scripture is fundamental to our faith and from my study this past week it would seem to me that the grammatical-historical interpretation is likely the best hermeneutic.
