New Year’s Resolution. I said to myself, “Self, NO MORE BOOKS.”
There.
I lasted one month.
But what is a bibliophile to do when there is a great sale on books AND the person is a Christian who needs the money? Buy a bunch, of course.
Bibliophile: “a person who collects or has a great love of books.” I love books, everything about them. Their construction, their looks, the possibilities they offer for imagination taking flight, for reality being put aside for just a little bit. I love old books, first editions, oir just good books. They are friends.
I love finding them, inventorying them, shelving them, thinking about them.
Bookworm: “a person devoted to reading.” I love reading but admittedly as I’ve aged and I’m still working full-time in a mentally demanding job, I have little energy to read on a weekday evening anymore, pitifully.
What’s the difference between a bibliophile and a bookworm? Not much. They often go hand in hand. A bibliophile is someone who loves books and often collects them, while a bookworm is an avid reader. Bibliophiles may also enjoy the physical aspects of books, such as their smell, feel, and appearance, while bookworms may be more interested in the content, says AI. I’m both.
My home growing up didn’t have many books or even a bookshelf but both parents read. In a later childhood home there were lots of books. The downstairs den had floor to ceiling built-in bookshelves. I used to enjoy looking at the titles of these grown up books. As for me, my library card was fairly worn out with how much I was there getting more and more books to read.
I also love giving them away. If someone needs a book, either any book or a certain book, they can have it if I have it.
I’ve got three other bookcases with books in them, all secular. One is in the bedroom and two are in the living room. A small shelf in the kitchen has cookbooks, and on my table is a small shelf of ‘what I’m reading now or next.’
My theological library-
trunk is antique with an old map for its covering. both these chairs are vintage.
It’s been many years of accumulating, curating, looking. About 18 years, to get to this point.
Televangelist Paula White and President Donald Trump on Feb. 6. Photo by Schwartz/Sipa/Bloomberg via Getty Images
You’ve heard by now, probably, that President Trump is creating the White House Faith Office led by Paula White. He began the initiative in 2018. One of the people included in the inside of that initiative was Justin Dean, former communications officer for Driscoll’s Mars Hill church, which is also not a good sign-
Dean said on X,
“Trump started the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative. He would invite faith leaders to speak into policies and decisions, and sought out their opinions. This led to major prison reform, disaster aid for churches, adoption and foster care reform, and further protections for religious liberty, among others… most notably the appointment of common sense pro- life judges, and the decision on Roe v Wade.”
Good stuff. That is something to praise the Lord for.
The bad part is this: Dean continued, “This initiative included Paula White, Greg Laurie, Jentezen Franklin, Franklin Graham, and many others from all walks of faith and beliefs.”
All those people mentioned are false teachers. Dean continued,
“We have participated in almost monthly calls with political leaders, many times with President Trump joining the calls. He would ask for and listen to our advice, and let us pray over him. We met for many in-person gatherings”…
Good to know that they are so heavily involved, so we can be aware and pray against bad religious advice. We can also pray that the President is searching for truth and will eventually come to the true faith. The alternative is that the bad religious advice he’s receiving will be along the lines of the verse in Matthew 23:15,
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.”
Sadly, Dean then said this:
“Trump may not be the best example of a Christian leader, but he does respect and understand the importance of surrounding himself with Christian leaders, and he has proven over the years that he listens and has made many great actions based on their advice. This group has been more influential over his policies and decisions than you’ll ever realize.”
President Trump is not a Christian, nor are the others. It’s good to know, though, that he seems to understand and respect Christianity, such as he understands it. I am old enough to have seen many political leaders simply USING Christianity for their own gain. I don’t sense that here. Of course I am sad that the President’s soul-searching is leading him down this broad path. Perhaps the Lord has a course correction in mind later to the narrow road. I don’t know. The Lord knows.
It’s really no different than Obama being advised by false teacher Rick Warren, or most the the previous generation of Presidents being advised by Billy Graham, who was also false.
What true Christians can do, now that you know how deeply these wolves are involved in governing activities, is to pray for true shepherds to be allowed near the President.
My advice is this: I’ve seen a lot of shock and outrage and distress over Donald Trump’s choice of Paula White. Don’t be shocked. Don’t be distressed. Don’t be outraged. What else can we expect from a non-believer? Why are Christians surprised when non-saved people act like non-saved people? We know Trump is not a believer, so we shouldn’t expect him to act like one. He doesn’t know how to choose a righteous man to help him along the path of righteousness. He can do no less.
What we can pray for is that these wolves will at least even accidentally give the gospel to the President and for him to be saved. And, for him to continue works that align with God’s values, if not the faith, as in opposing abortion, major prison reform, disaster aid for churches, adoption and foster care reform, further protections for religious liberty and so on.
The Lord raised President Trump at this time to lead. He has His reasons. We should do like we always do, pray, watch, and pray some more.
We should fix our gaze upon Jesus, not the latest comedy or sports teams. Viewing those things is not a sin, but fixing on them, that would be a sin.
Let’s focus on the phrase “fix your eyes upon Jesus” from Hebrews 12:2. I looked up the word “fix” and Strong’s says
872 aphoráō (from 575 /apó, “away from” and 3708 /horáō, “see”) – properly, “looking away from all else, to fix one’s gaze upon” (Abbott-Smith).
How helpful. I should not glance, not peek, not glimpse, but FIX my GAZE upon him, looking away from all else and steadily drinking in all that He is.
I need to spend more time with Jesus to look more like Him. What a great line. Moses only got to see God’s ‘back’ and Moses’ face after being with God was so bright it had to be veiled. We have the privilege of looking at Jesus’ “face” as it were, through His word. I want my face to be shining, to have my being conformed to Him, to have my mind transformed. But it won’t happen unless I read the Bible.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth
When God created the earth, He could have made it colorless. He could have used only His brush strokes of black, or gray, or brown. The world could look like this:
EPrata photo
Did you ever wonder why God graced us with a common grace of color? He has made the world beautiful in its time, says Ecclesiastes 3:11. This beauty includes the spectrum of colors which we enjoy in all its prettiness. I particularly enjoy colorful flowers.
EPrata photo
EPrata photo
EPrata photo
The Bible has in it of course, references to colors. It doesn’t, however, really explain if colors of the tabernacle meant anything, if they individually had a symbolism. Other colors do have a symbolism. Here is Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary’s entry on color:
Although the Bible contains relatively few references to individual colors, their symbolic associations are theologically significant. Colors usually symbolize redemptive and eschatological themes. The Bible is, however, silent on whether the colors used in the tabernacle, temple, and priestly garments held symbolic meaning.
Black signifies gloom, mourning, evil, judgment, and death (Lam 4:8; Micah 3:6; Zechariah 6:2 Zechariah 6:6; Revelation 6:5 Revelation 6:12). Its image is often one of dense, impenetrable darkness (Job 3:5; Isa 50:3). The terms “darkness” and “night” parallel this usage (Job 3:3-7; Joel 2:2; Zeph 1:15). Hell is the place of “blackest darkness” reserved for the godless (2 Peter 2:17; Jude 13).
The pale horse of Revelation 6:8 resembles the color of the terror-stricken and corpses (cf. Jer 30:6; Dan 10:8). The horse’s color matches the work of its rider. Its rider is called Death, who, with Hades, goes forth to kill a fourth of humankind.
An expensive dye, purple represents wealth and royalty (Judges 8:26; Est 8:15; Daniel 5:7, Daniel 5:16, Daniel 5:29; Luke 16:19); for this reason, idols were attired in purple (Jer 10:9). The purple dress of the harlot symbolized Roman imperial rank (Rev 17:4; Revelation 18:12, Revelation 18:16). Before his crucifixion, Jesus was robed in purple in mockery of him as “king of the Jews” (Mark 15:17, Mark 15:20; John 19:2, John 19:5; cf. Matt 27:28,; “scarlet robe”). Garments of purple suitably clothe a wife of noble character (Prov 31:22).
Red symbolizes blood. Israel’s sin as brilliant scarlet and deep-red crimson is analogous to the bloodstained hands of murderers (Isaiah 1:15 Isaiah 1:18). The images of red, blood-soaked garments of God as an avenging warrior (Isa 63:1-6) and the fiery red horse bringing slaughter through warfare (Zech 6:2; Rev 6:4) describe divine retribution against evildoers (see also Joel 2:31; Rev 6:12). The red color of the dragon (Rev 12:3) and beast (17:3) symbolizes the shedding of innocent blood (11:7; 16:6). The red heifer (Nu 19:1-10) and scarlet wool (Heb 9:19) symbolize the Old Testament means of purification through blood; the New Testament powerfully expresses the fullness of Christ’s atoning work through a contradictory color image: believers’ robes are washed pure white through the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 7:9 Revelation 7:13-14 ; 19:13-14).
White signifies purity and holiness. It depicts complete forgiveness of sin. David and Israel’s bloodguilt would be fully removed, leaving them whiter than snow/wool (Psalm 51:7; Isa 1:18). It represents the absolute moral purity of God (Da 7:9), Christ (Rev 1:14; Mark 9:3; pars.), angels (Mark 16:5 ; pars. Acts 1:10), and believers (Rev 2:17; 3:4-5; 4:4), and thus of the divine judgment of God (20:11) and Christ (14:14). It indicates the certainty of God’s conquest and victory over evil (Zechariah 6:3 Zechariah 6:6; Rev 6:2; 19:11).
H. Douglas Buckwalter, Bibliography. G. W. Thatcher, Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1:456-58; P. L. Garber, ISBE, 1:729-32; A. Brenner, Colour Terms in the Old Testament; “Color, ” BEB, 1:494-96.
Color is a common grace. Every person on the planet whether young or old, saved and acknowledging the creator or unsaved and worshiping the creation, enjoys the colors of this earth. Everyone can admire a sunset, colorful avian plumage, floral hues that delight the senses.
Common Grace refers to the grace of God that is common to all humankind. It is “common” because its benefits are experienced by the whole human race without distinction between one person and another, believers or unbelievers. It is “grace” because it is undeserved and sovereignly bestowed by God.
The Lord God created a world that is beautiful. Its beauty is enhanced by the colors He created for us (and Him!) to enjoy in our common grace. The painted desert, the lush tropics, the animals, insects, and fish in all their rich tones and hues are a joy. He didn’t have to but He did.
I grew up in The Ocean State, Rhode Island. Yes, it’s small, really small. You’re never far from the ocean. My grandparents had a summer house on Narragansett Bay and we were there constantly in the summer, every weekend. When I got older my mother let me ride my bike the 3 miles to their house. I’d spend all day in the water or on the sand.
Lori Alexander The Transformed Wife of Twitter’s @godlywomanhood is the negative gift that keeps on giving. She is so prodigious in her errant output, there is a lot to choose from when I write an essay instructing sisters in discernment.
The genius of satan’s false teaching is that false teaching sounds good on the surface. It even has a grain of truth. If false teaching was overtly wrong, everyone could detect it. “The ocean is dry” is something that’s so patently false you know right away it’s wrong.
Satan is subtle and crafty (Genesis 3:1). It’s the first thing we learn about him.
Issue #1L KJV-Onlyism and word usage
Lori is a King James Onlyist. She agrees with her idol Michael Pearl who claims that only “the King James Bible is the word of God and not the other books“(source) and that all the other translations “are not really translations, they are not preservations of the word of God, they are modern renderings which involve somewhat the imagination of the authors. They are all done for the sake of selling something.” (Source). So, that is the first error from Lori, to reject all other translations. She does not have a handle on how or why Bible translations are done. Some translations are better than others, but to reject out of hand the NASB, LSB, ESV, NKJV and other good translations as not the word of God is a mistake.
The other day Lori posted the following on X (formerly Twitter):
OK, good food for thought, right? Partly, yes. I mean, for one, it is an issue that Lori neglected to include a verse and just stated her opinion. On the other hand, selfie culture is self-absorbed. I mean, it’s right in the name. It makes you think, is taking selfies something God would be displeased with?
But I mention the King James issue for a reason. The language in that particular version is archaic, which means, some of the words have shifted meaning. Words are living, organic. I love certain verses better in the KJV myself, but I have no illusions that it is the ONLY translation worthy of including in the cadre of translations.
For example, in 2 Timothy 3:3 in the King James version we read that in the latter days, people will be “Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,“
The word incontinent is a late Middle English word. It meant a person who is unable to exercise self-control or restraint. Nowadays it means an inability to control the flow of urine from the bladder. The chart displays its common usage over time, which has declined.
The verse Lori alluded to when she wrote shamefaced is 1 Timothy 2:9. I use the NASB and LSB. The link takes you to a page with ALL the translations.
KJV: In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
The word ‘broided’ is not a typo. It is defined as to decorate with needlework or embroidery. We don’t use that word much anymore either. The KJV was completed in 1611. Words have shifted meaning in 400 years. If anyone doubts this, read Shakespeare.
EPrata photo
Comparing to the NASB: Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive apparel,
Legalism is ugly
“shamefaced” literally in the Greek means “modestly”. In fact, prior to the KJV that Lori loves so much, the word was translated shamefastness. You see the archaic language and the fact that words change. Using a synonym modestly for shamefaced is perfectly fine, and easier for modern readers to understand.
Issue #2, Basing your Christianity on just 2 verses
Secondly, Lori’s insistence on teaching ONLY from the verse in Titus 2:3-5 means she often takes verses out of context. The verse to which she alludes (but doesn’t name) in her post involves the comportment of women in public worship, not taking photos of themselves in other life venues.
Barnes’ Notes explains: The world, as God has made it, is full of beauty, and he has shown in each flower that he is not opposed to true ornament. There are multitudes of things which, so far as we can see, appear to be designed for mere ornament, or are made merely because they are beautiful. Religion does not forbid true adorning. It differs from the world only on the question what “is” true ornament…
However, the concept of self in photographs is one that we should look into. Rather than misusing a verse, rather than taking a half of a verse out of context, rather than using an allusion to a verse as one’s own opinion, let’s take a look at the idea behind Lori’s comment.
Issue #3: Selfie culture can be dangerous
Should we be taking selfies? Is it indicative of an untoward self-absorption as a Christian woman?
“A “selfie culture” is one in which people take a lot of selfies, of course. But, for the purposes of this article, we will further define a selfie culture as a widespread obsession with self-expression, self-esteem, and self-promotion, evidenced by the proliferation of self-portraits on social media. The Bible was written before the advent of camera phones, but God’s Word still has plenty to say about one’s view of self. While there is nothing inherently wrong with taking a selfie and sharing it with others, selfie culture, as defined above, is steeped in narcissism.”
A woman can decide for herself if she wants to take a photo of herself.
If a woman is consumed with self and posting obsessively all kinds of pictures of herself, then yes, there is a self-absorption issue and she needs to repent.
God’s commands to women are many. ONE is to be modest. Others are to serve others, to be selfless, to take care of her family, and so on. Taking a selfie now and then does not violate God’s commands for women. I mean, obviously not, else Lori herself would be violating God’s commands for her nearly daily selfie videos, right?
Ladies, watch out for the craftiness of false doctrine. It sounds good at first, but like a candy coated cyanide treat, it will eventually kill you. Look carefully before consuming.
Meg Basham on Twitter-X has been posting well-known Gospel songs sung in other countries in their language. They are terrific! I love listening because it is a wonderful and happy reminder the Gospel is being spread to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the rest of the world.
We will be greeted in heaven by people from all nations, tribes, tongues, and what a day that will be!
This Southern Gospel song “When the Roll is Called Up Yonder” from Russia especially takes off when the male singer comes in. Simon Khorolskiy – When the Roll Is Called up Yonder – На небесной перекличке:
This is Kenyan singer Samson Maombi who covers famous country Gospel music hits in Swahili language. (Warning: He is Seventh Day Adventist- his song is good, his religion is not).
Southern Gospel by way of India! The Living Stones Quartet from Kerala India
The Kiffness x Gogo Gloriose – Everyday (I need the blood of Jesus)-Rwanda
The Kiffness x Rushawn – It’s a Beautiful Day (Original song by Jermaine Edwards)- Jamaica
The Lord reigns over all! His GOOD NEWS penetrates to the smallest corner of the world and in even the darkest heart!
Today on X (formerly Twitter), a theologian noted that Jen Wilkin made a nonsensical statement by twisting a biblical concept while on a Q&A Panel. He said,
I’ll have three points here: 1. In general, avoid Jen Wilkin, 2. Specifically, explaining the error of her statement that was posted yesterday, 3. Explaining what the ordo amoris is.
1. In general, avoid Jen Wilkin
I have written about Jen Wilkin several times here on my blog, once positively (long ago!) and then always negatively. Jen is a teacher and preacher out of Matt Chandler’s church, The Village Church in Flower Mound, TX. She has been the Director of Curriculum, she has been teaching pastors & missionaries, and she preaches as a guest in other churches. Of course, the Bible says a woman may not preach or teach men in the church. (1 Timothy 2:11-12). It is disgraceful for her to do so. (1 Corinthians 33-35).
She is an egalitarian, feminist, rebel, Bible twister, unhumble, unteachable, and in general, one to be avoided. She is false. Resources supporting my claims will be provided below.
2. Specifically, explaining why her statement today is error
The entire video from which this short clip is taken is available on Youtube. It is from a Gospel Coalition series titled Good Faith Debates, and the debate was “Should Christians Send their Children to Public School?” Wilkin’s stance is pro-public school. She believes in the “public school ideal” and thinks that Christian children, even kindergarteners, should be in public schools to be a witness and to be engaged in society. So that is her overall stance.
In this specific short clip Jen said, “The most common phrase I hear thrown out in these conversations is ‘well I just need to do what’s best for my family.’ I think that’s something that as Christians we have to push back on. Philippians tells us each of you should look not just to your own interest but to the interests of others.“
Something that dishonest debaters do is to make a generalization. Here, Jen said ‘conversations I’ve heard’. Normally, people have conversations with people who think and believe the same as they do. If she has heard conversations of people saying that 5 year olds need to be active witnesses in public school then I am positive this is a biased view of the situation. It’s also too narrow. Her statement is not based on wide-ranging, unbiased fact. Or the Bible in context.
Secondly, another dishonest debating trick is to restate the question as an either-or. She split what should not be split. Here, Jen subtly poses the question as ‘Christians either ONLY do what’s best for their family’ (and by implication, no one else). She makes it seem as if Christians in this debate are only concerned with their own family and are ignoring the needs of the rest of the world.
No one in their right mind is going to ‘push back on’ having a primary view of doing for one’s family. No one. In addition, most Christians are concerned with the needs of others. Philanthropy is alive and well among the brethren.
3. What is the ‘Ordo Amoris’?
The term originates from Augustine, if not the concept from the Bible. He wrote about it in the City of God. We know that we are supposed to love the right things; holiness, our spouse, His word, our neighbor, His name (Psalm 5:11), and so on. We also are not supposed to love certain things- we are not supposed to love violence Psalm 11:5, or worthless things (Psalm 119:37).
But in addition to knowing what to love, we are supposed to love in the right order. That’s where ordo comes from, it’s a Latin word. So is amoris. We love pizza, we love our football team, we love our home, our children, our spouse, Jesus. Not all of those loves are measured with the same weight. We don’t even love all the people in our lives the same amount.
“For whatever reason, Jesus had His Peter, James, and John, and He had His twelve, and He had His seventy. And so there are these concentric circles of intimacy, it seems, that mattered to Him.” ~John MacArthur
We love our family first, the nuclear family is the first priority. Our deep love and care goes to the people living under our roof. That is found in 1 Timothy 5:8. “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.“
It doesn’t say not to provide for anyone else except your family, it says to be kind to all, but especially one’s family, indicating a hierarchy. There are circles of responsibility. As pastor John Michael LaRue said on X,
“To add to this, Paul’s recognition in 1 Corinthians 7:33-34 of the divided interest of the married man undergirds the reality that the husband and father has responsibilities of protection and care for his wife and children that a single man does not have.“
Then a close second in love are extended family members, then our neighbors, then love our community, then our country, and then consider the interests of the rest of the world. Of course these can overlap and even shift. The concentric circles are not in stone.
Galatians 6:10 says “So then, while we have opportunity, let’s do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith“, again indicating a concentric circle of mindfulness when considering to whom we donate. Jesus said to love your neighbor and defined it as, well, anyone in whose proximity we can share God’s love with.
My view on this ordo amoris discussion is, I trust true Christians to do and to give wisely based on their good decisions, true Christians who are making unwise decisions will be dealt with by Jesus (not me), and if they are not true Christians, then when they face Jesus they will have worse things to worry about than who or what to whom they gave donations.
In an essay about the ordo amoris, not specifically commenting about Jen Wilkin’s either-or statement, Owen Strachan said not to be “confused by silly dichotomies. You can love your natural family AND love the global body of Christ AND seek the salvation of the lost among the nations.”
The point is to use wisely the means (money, expertise, energy) Jesus has given us. Being a wise shepherd means making wise decisions about how to deploy what Jesus has gifted us with. After settling one’s obligations for the month, there may be discretionary money to use to fulfill others’ needs. Even if there is no money leftover we can use our energy, time, expertise to help fulfill others’ needs. As Christians we DO help with needs, as Christians we do so wisely.
Conclusion
False teachers abound, and Jen Wilkin is one of them. False teachers use deceptive language to divide the brethren, to confuse them, and to advance their evil agenda. Third, the ordo amoris is just a fancy phrase for being wise in providing for the people in your circles and extending outward with care and attention, founded by prayer and biblical principles.
One of my most fervent prayers is that your/my church is not filled with comfortable unbelievers. The odds are though, that at least some in the church believe they are saved but are not. The Bible says,
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ ” (Matthew 7:21-23)
Artist: Boris Sajtinac
Today is the day we should…
...draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. (Hebrews 10:22)
Here is a resource for you to test your faith and find assurance
Is It Real?– 11 Biblical Tests of Genuine Salvation 1 John; 1 John 5:1; John 10: 10; 1 Peter 5:10-
Throughout the letter is a series of tests to determine whether you possess eternal life. If you don’t pass these tests, you’ll know where you stand and what you need to do. If you do, you’ll have reason to enjoy your eternal salvation with great assurance.
God gave us His Spirit to indwell us as the guarantee of our salvation and of our future eternity with Jesus. Do you have the Spirit? Are you sure? Here are further resources addressing the question-
Hermeneutics. It’s not a word you hear often inside of churches. In our watered down state of the church, preachers and pastors don’t often use the “big words” any more. If they do, they’re abashed and even apologize for saying theological words like ‘justification’ or ‘inerrancy.’ Hermeneutics is a battleground in our continued spiritual warfare against the schemes of the devil. You have to know what it is.
From the Compact Dictionary Doctrinal Words by Terry L. Mithe, hermeneutics is
From the Greek hermeneutikos, “interpretation.” Hermeneutics is the science of the study and interpretation of Scripture, the branch of theology that prescribes rules by which the Bible should be interpreted. Biblical hermeneutics strives to formulate guidelines for studying scripture that help recover the meaning a biblical text had for its original hearers.
Here are some thoughts regarding hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting text, in this case, biblical text. The problem today isn’t so much Bible inerrancy, it’s Bible insufficiency- the Bible isn’t enough so we interpret it the way we want. The opposite of hermeneutics is casual interpretation and practices such as “life verses” and “what this verse means to me”.
In this essay you will find-
1. John MacArthur explains the fallacy of teaching ‘What does this verse mean “to me?”‘ 2. A recommendation of Todd Friel’s teaching series “Herman Who? The art and science of interpreting Scripture“. (His ministry is now called Fortis Institute) is very helpful. 3. Matthew Henry’s quote
I think we’ve all seen either in real life or in videos, where a popular women’s ‘Bible teacher’ stands up to welcome her audience and to share with us her ‘life verse.’ Or as we hear the teacher ask the women, say, “Now, what does this verse means to you?…”
Biblical interpretation is not a Rorschach test “What do you see in the inkblot?”
That’s a fashionable concern, judging from the trends in devotional booklets, home Bible study discussions, Sunday-school literature, and most popular preaching. The question of what Scripture means has taken a back seat to the issue of what it means “to me.” The difference may seem insignificant at first. Nevertheless, our obsession with the Scripture’s applicability reflects a fundamental weakness. We have adopted practicality as the ultimate judge of the worth of God’s Word.
In just one paragraph, MacArthur punctures the practice. We cannot adopt a scripture because it has personal applicability to us and dispense with other verses because they don’t. MacArthur continues,
No believer can apply truth he doesn’t know. Those who don’t understand what the Bible really says about marriage, divorce, family, child-rearing, discipline, money, debt, work, service to Christ, eternal rewards, helping the poor, caring for widows, respecting government, and other teachings won’t be able to apply it. Those who don’t know what the Bible teaches about salvation cannot be saved. Those who don’t know what the Bible teaches about holiness are incapable of dealing with sin. Thus they are unable to live fully to their own blessedness and God’s glory. True doctrine transforms behavior as it is woven into the fabric of everyday life. But it must be understood if it is to have its impact. The real challenge of the ministry is to dispense the truth clearly and accurately. Practical application comes easily by comparison.
Solid biblical hermeneutics searches for truth under the premise of “What did God intend for me to know about Himself in this passage?” versus today’s practice of me-centered interpretations asking “What does this verse mean to me?” The latter leads to a false kind of open-mindedness regarding interpretation. It’s also “me-centered” and not God centered.
In theology at some point you need firmness, it’s imperative to obtain a settled authoritative stance on at least the fundamentals of the faith.
When it comes to possessing a firm understanding of the foundations of the faith gained by a proper interpretive methid, it’s OK to be ‘dogmatic’.
Dogmatic theology gets its name from the Greek and Latin word dogma which, when referring to theology, simply means “a doctrine or body of doctrines formally and authoritatively affirmed.”
Biblical hermeneutics appropriately conducted leads to an illumination of the scriptures which leads to a Spirit-settled understanding which leads to an authoritative witness with conviction. S. Lewis Johnson this in his sermon “Paul’s Right to Compensation.” In highlighting the importance of dogmatism he compared the ridiculousness of open-minded non-dogmatism in the secular world:
Now, I’ve been talking like I’m dogmatic, haven’t I? I’ve been trying to inject a little bit of the apostolic dogmatism in it. The world has little use for people without convictions when — for example, when your child becomes very, very sick and you want to call a doctor, you don’t call a doctor who is open-minded about personal disease, do you? Or we don’t send our children to school if we know the teachers are open-minded about the multiplication tables and things like that. We don’t do that. We want someone that we have confidence in…
Does a pastor ascend the pulpit on a Sunday morning after a week of study, and say, “Open to John chapter 3, here is what the verse means to me. It may mean something different to you.” No. Not a good pastor.
In contrasting the “this verse means to me” approach with the biblical approach, we now turn to Acts 8:26:40. The Spirit directed Philip the evangelist to go up to the Ethiopian Eunuch, who was seated in his chariot reading scripture, Isaiah 53 as it turns out. How did Philip begin the teaching lesson? Did he say, “Oh, I see you are reading scripture. What does the verse ‘“Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth’ mean to you?”
Of course not. We read in Acts 8:30-31 that Philip asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” This indicates there is one understanding, not many understandings dependent on personal applicability, whether the reader likes it, or how it fits into their culture or era.
In humility, the Eunuch said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” indicating that interpreting a verse is not about a mutual exchange of different interpretations relative to an individual’s personal meaning, but a teacher-student relationship wherein one submits to the other’s greater knowledge and listens. (Always check for proper interpretations as a Berean afterward as per Acts 17:11). What happened next was,
Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. (Acts 8:35)
Philip told him. Dogmatically, authoritatively. That’s what a teacher does, he studies, submits himself to the Spirit and seeks the interpretation. Then he tells the Good News. Do we say “I will share the Good News. It’s Good News to Me. Maybe it won’t be to you.” Heavens, no!
This is not to say that we aren’t humble when we’re dogmatic. Philip was humble when he submitted to the Spirit’s order to go where he didn’t know and approach the person he didn’t know and explain the scriptures to him. The Eunuch was also humble in his reply.
The difference between errant dogmatism and correct dogmatism in hermeneutical interpretation is the Holy Spirit. He will settle you, if you earnestly seek the Lord and submit to His teaching. Once a passage or doctrine is settled in your mind due to the Spirit’s illumination, then it’s the time to explain, exhort, and defend.
Observe, No scripture prophecy is of private interpretation (or a man’s own proper opinion, an explication of his own mind), but the revelation of the mind of God. … But though the scripture be not the effusion of man’s own private opinion or inclination, but the revelation of the mind and will of God, yet every private man ought to search it, and come to understand the sense and meaning thereof.
Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (p. 2436). Peabody: Hendrickson.
the-end-time.org 