Excellent, concise answer to a difficult question. Thank you Rev. Keith! Appreciate your insights.

Aka eisegesis and hubris. The first rule of hermeneutics is humility, the more we think we know the more we impose ourselves on the text. We attempt to inform God’s word rather than allowing God’s word to form with in us. Blind and deaf yet not dumb, deliver us from such folly.

@CrownOfThornss

2 ай бұрын

Amen🙏

Finally! A video that doesn't go 0n for OVER an Hour!!! And it's Outstanding as well!!

@ConversationswithaCalvinist

2 ай бұрын

Ha! My next video is gonna be long lol But I got some stuff later this week that’ll be short (and fun!)🤩

Well said!

I really appreciated the Supreme Court analogy. This was a very good explanation of hermeneutics for the average person.

@dman7668

2 ай бұрын

Yes the Catholic Church is that Supreme Court. Once protestantism rejected it, things spiral out of control.

@calebantwi1800

2 ай бұрын

Nah.

@dman7668

2 ай бұрын

@calebantwi1800 Yeah you can say "nah" all you like, but the reality is if you have two different Christian churches and they both rule different truths, how do you adjudicate and bring order to this chaos?

@user-kg9xi2xk1k

2 ай бұрын

​@@dman7668 The irony here is the Romanists have more in common with the bizarro liberal denominations like the United Methodists, ELCA and others in their rejection of Sola Scriptura. I would liken the Roman Catholics and the so called "Orthodox" to being the 9th circuit. They screw everything up and everyone knows it except for a handful of liberals who really don't care about a faithful interpretation of the Constitution in the first place, so long as it benefits them.

@clausewitz41_plus_1

2 ай бұрын

@@dman7668 If the Magisterium, whose whole purpose is to rightly interpret scripture, has failed to authoritatively interpret less than a dozen passages of scripture in their 1000+ years of existence, how can we rely on the Church of Rome to provide answers to the application of Scripture?

I appreciate this explanation and am so grateful that God loves us despite our propensity to insert ourselves and our cultures and experiences into Scripture.

Brilliant Thank you for that explanation

Great video dude

@ConversationswithaCalvinist

2 ай бұрын

Thanks bro!

@Laradox...

2 ай бұрын

@@ConversationswithaCalvinist I’m so excited I hit 367 subscribers and could I have a shoutout

🚨Ding Ding Ding good answer Keith! Survey says…Hermeneutics‼️

Dr James White's book "KJV Only Controversy" covers a lot of this regarding scripture. Great book!

@Mojo32

2 ай бұрын

I haven't yet read that, so does he conclude that KJV should be it, or not?

I do think the hermaneutics piece is a huge part of the problem and you are right on that.

Love the channel and I respectfully ask this in light of what you just said but when Revelation 20 says that the Kingdom of Christ will last for 1,000 years how do you interpret that as meaning "not a 1,000 years" aka the amillennial view? This isn't a "gotcha" I sincerely would like to know. Thanks.

@lfkeitel

2 ай бұрын

Part of hermeneutics is understanding the literary genre of a text. We don't interpret prophecy the way we do history or poetry. Revelation is a very symbolic book drawing heavily on Old Testament allusions. Therefore, most of Revelation's text should be seen in that symbolic light taking into account how similar language is used in the OT. The number 1,000 is used symbolically to mean a very long time (or forever/all). Psalm 50:10 also uses thousand to mean all hills. Hope that helps.

@danielwarton5343

2 ай бұрын

Revelation definitely has symbols but it has very literal parts to a lot of it too. The 1000 years is easy to see as fulfilment of the time that Christ will rule and reign on earth, over Israel before the eternal state. The prophets of the OT have a lot of things that have to be allegorised to try and fit the symbolic approach to Revelation

@bigtobacco1098

2 ай бұрын

Only 1 return... not 3

@Pastor_Grant

2 ай бұрын

@@bigtobacco1098 1 return to earth to establish the Kingdom

@bigtobacco1098

2 ай бұрын

@@Pastor_Grant thats it... no extra returns at the rapture and beginning of the 1000 years and again after the 1000 years... just 1

One interpretation, many possible applications. What did the author mean when he wrote this? How can I apply the truth of the text to my life?

@dman7668

2 ай бұрын

If the bible requires interpretation then it doesn't do us any good to have a fallible Church. Hence why the Catholic Church claims infallibility in interpretation of scripture. I personally see this as a logical idea since without it every Church interprets how it sees fit causing anarchy.

@paul.phillips

2 ай бұрын

@@dman7668 Rome is apostate.

@4jgarner

2 ай бұрын

​@@dman7668communication always requires interpretation on some level. Do the things the Catholic Church says need also to be interpreted? If not, then why do they not but the Bible does? And if so then does that explanation need to be interpreted? Then we are just in the same problem again.

@dman7668

2 ай бұрын

@4jgarner No, this isn't circular reasoning. I know that's what Protestants say back when we Catholics bring it up, but it literally isn't circular reasoning. The Catholic Church doesn't need an institution to interpret it. Because that interpretation is coming from the Holy Spirit. You literally are trying to use an atheist argument and haven't considered that. It goes like this "If there is a God then who created God? That's circular reasoning " You literally are arguing like an atheist. Obvious God doesn't need an additional creator to exist. In this same way the Catholic Church doesn't require interpretation to interpret the Catholic Church's interpretation. I hope you found this explanation enlightening because I did just explaining it.

@4jgarner

2 ай бұрын

@@dman7668 you completely dodged what I said. Either that or you misinterpreted it. When the Catholic Church is communicating it's teachings (for example: the teaching of the correct interpretation of a particular passage of Scripture) does that communication need teaching? Can I understand that communication without interpretation? Of course the Holy Spirit guides all Christians individually and the Church as a whole in interpretation of God's Word. But at what point can one understand it? At no point did I mention circular reasoning. And I didn't argue like an atheist. An atheist ignores that God would by the necessity of His nature not be created. But the claim here is that all communication needs interpretation. So then how can that interpretation be communicated to me in a way I can finally understand? The message of that communication would also need to be interpreted per your own claim.

This answer says zero about the key part of the question: "with the Holy Spirit leading and guiding."

Great arguments for One Church :)

@dman7668

2 ай бұрын

Absolutely.

@user-kg9xi2xk1k

2 ай бұрын

romanists can be one church with these liberal protestants in their attacks against sola scriptura - we are more than glad to let you have them

Thank you for that. I'd have said b/c we are trying to translate ancient texts written in a language nobody uses anymore. I believe the original text is infallible. But interpreting that into a language other than the original means you have to take into account the differences between the languages and what the words mean to the the people for whom you are providing the translation. Me, having an original text, (though that would be awesome,) would still be ignorant of what it says and means. So it's no good to me, or for God's purpose in my life ,or for those whom I may affect. I need a translation for it to be helpful and useful to me. I don't presume dishonesty on the part of the translators. And most translations are done in committee, so there are a lot of people working on them, all striving to be accurate, if for no other reason, than that the others will call them out.

ESV suffers here. Gen 3:16 in particular

With so many versions, how could you not have different interpretations? AV 1611 is the jam brother. Thanks for your videos by the way. I love you and them.

@nathan1sixteen

2 ай бұрын

You can get many interpretations from the same translation. You will never find 2 pastors that agree on every aspect of scripture, even if they’re 1611 only pastors. There will still be things that they interpret differently. Can many translations that word things differently increase the number of interpretations? Sure, but it’s not like everyone who uses the same translation always comes to the same conclusion.

@gigahorse1475

2 ай бұрын

@@nathan1sixteen I think you mean you *can* get many interpretations from the same translation.

@gigahorse1475

2 ай бұрын

1611 KJV preference is fine, but beware of KJV-only extremism. I went to a KJV extremist church and it was on the border of heretical and sometimes the pastor crossed into blasphemy territory.

@nathan1sixteen

2 ай бұрын

@@gigahorse1475 correct, I’ll fix it. Thanks for the catch

@dman7668

2 ай бұрын

If the scriptures require interpretation that means we would need an infallible interpreter. Hence the Catholic Church is that Supreme Court authority. It has done so since before the reformation.

A true but incomplete answer. Even applying a proper hermeneutic, the outcome of an interpretation alters depending on previously concluded matters of fact. This applies doubly so on matters of basic logical reasoning, on octuply so if you consider the source text infallible. To a Calvinist, it flows as a matter of reason that if the sinner commits any action, commits any verb which is necessary in the process of salvation, that this is works based salvation. Therefore any verse which implies this is happening must default to other interpretations because works based salvation would result in Biblical contradictions, and since the Bible is infallible, no contradictory interpretation may be valid. To non-Calvinists, its flows as a matter of reason that people commit verbs and actions all the time without "earning" the necessary result. It is therefore not necessarily works based salvation. Those interpretations of verses then do not result in contradictions and thusly do not need to be disqualified for an infallible Bible. Zero difference in how the text is read. Merely differing understandings of fact and reason before the hermeneutic is even applied.

@dman7668

2 ай бұрын

Ultimately, the scriptures require interpretation and God knew this. Hence it does have one, the Catholic Church. We can deny this and you no doubt will, but the Catholic point is the most logical. Without infallibility we cannot settle these differences in interpretation. This is exactly why the early Church held councils. Now we can't do that in protestantism because it rejects Councils. So we stay in this quagmire.

@PatrickSteil

2 ай бұрын

Brilliant.

@JD-xz1mx

2 ай бұрын

@@dman7668 I don't need to deny a claim that has never been coherently justified to me in the first place. No Catholic has ever given me any reason whatsoever for the premise that there is any specific earthly institution with authoritative power of interpretation, and neither have you. If there were such an institution, they would then have to show why it is the specific institution they declare that it is. They don't even try to do so. It is simply asserted as a presupposition, and then I am expected to use evidence to contradict their evidence free presupposition. Not going to bother. If its too much work for a Catholic to give me any reason whatsoever to believe their claim, than it is certainly too much work for me to try and reason against unreason.

@dman7668

2 ай бұрын

@JD-xz1mx As long as you deny the Catholic Church has any interpretation authority and reserve it only for yourself or whatever Church you follow, the quagmire will just continue for you Protestants. I'm just pointing out the obvious. God isn't the author of all these interpretations and since he only made the Catholic Church, only they could have authority to interpret the Bible infallibly. You can deny infallibility all you like, but ask yourself this: What good is an infallible book without means of infallibly interpreting it? You tell me how that works, since you have a better explanation, or at least think that you do. And yes it does show why it is indeed that institution and I'd be happy to discuss that if you change your mind.

@Jerome616

2 ай бұрын

Yup, hermeneutics don’t solve the denomination problem.

Yes! And what an atheist would say (Atheist Doctrine of Divine Perfectionism) Is that well then God is not perfect because He doesn’t give us perfect understanding of what His word says, and because of that they dismiss hermetical interpretation and take scripture out of context. They contend that it is impossible for anyone to know what God actually has said for sure so their interpretation is just as valid as anyone else’s. They also deny personal responsibility because they deny free will, which is another reason they don’t properly define the text of scripture. Now if you take them out of context they will jump all over you, but they don’t apply the same standard to the Bible.

How about they use the doctrine and traditions of men to make the word of God of NO EFFECT

Perhaps if all took 1 Timothy 3:15 as the starting point. That it is the CHURCH which is the pillar and bulwark of truth because a BOOK, no matter how Holy and Inspired cannot pronounce judgements on correct interpretation.

@dman7668

2 ай бұрын

This is what I think to, that ultimately we can say scripture interprets scripture, and while I agree with this only partially. There does come a point where scripture reaches it's limits doing that, and scripture cannot say "Wait, you are misinterpreting me" when someone starts coming up with different views. It cannot do that, which is why historically the Church had a bunch of ecumenical councils for this exact reason. To help outline Christian beliefs.

@PatrickSteil

2 ай бұрын

@@dman7668 Exactly. The wild thing is that under "sola scriptura" anyone is supposed to be able to read the Bible authoritatively (which really means read it and interpet it), but when the Church does it by councils, theolgians, all building on already decided interpretations, etc - somehow that is wrong... but I am supposed to trust my own interpretation to be correct? I was a Youth Pastor in the Methodist Church - what a great weight I felt on that. Crazy...

When you try to understand rightly dividing the Word of truth in 2 Tim 2:15 and don't use Heb 4:12 to interpret its meaning, you have already stumbled. We may be able to recite the word of God, but sharpness of the two-edged sword will always be diminished when we follow the flesh instead of walking by the Spirit. It's not that the sword becomes dull, it's the fact that we become dull of hearing. (Heb 5:11) If we think rightly dividing the Word has only a dispensational meaning, we simply miss the true interpretation because we have not truly escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. Just look at the United Methodist Church debacle.

@dman7668

2 ай бұрын

What you are missing is that this debacle is a result of the reformation failing to begin with. The point is that the reformation wasn't meant to spawn new denominations. Protestantism fails because truth is up for a democratic vote. This doesn't happen for example in the Catholic Church (the true Church). Each of your protestant Churches will have this problem, gay marriage isn't even the biggest scandal in Christianity now, we have worse ones. Like once saved always saved, or the denial of Christ in the blessed sacrament. The advantage of Protestantism is that truths can and do change. The advantage of Catholicism is that it can't, hence why people will jump ship and be Catholic rather then opening up themselves to yet another protestant church which can change truths based on votes. I'm just pointing this out because it's obviously something Protestantism isn't admitting openly.

QUick post before reading. WHy so many different interpretations? It isn't just eisegesis and presuppositions, Most people don't know their bible intimately, read it with focus only on books they may already understand, read it out of order, out of sequence, not chapter by chater in context, and we have done a poor job as a body generally in discipling people on HOW to read and understand passages. We give the gospel, see a conversion, tell them a little, and then expect them to just pick up early study thoughts from prior skill or by going to 'sunday school/life group'. It's clearly not working well, and the church leadership at large is to blame. It's time to change that, frankly. I'll watch now.

Exactly. Don’t listen to men with their own agendas. (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. )

OH LORD! Why didn’t you give us something like the Supreme Court for the Church? Didn’t you know we would get divided without one???? Oh wait….

@dman7668

2 ай бұрын

Yes, exactly lol. It's painful to watch Keith dodge the reality that this can of worms is just a direct result of what happens when the Bible is open to interpretation of every single person. He blames it on bad hermeneutics, but doesn't give us any answer on how the Church actually IS the Supreme Court and the problem with their being multiple Supreme courts (in the form of different Church institutions).

And sadly listening to others and believing others who have bad hermeneutics such as John Calvin and James White. If people would simply read and interpreted scripture directly and literally without injecting a preconceive bias and notion into the text (aka Calvinism) there would be less false doctrines and less deceived people. There are over 100 verses that if a Calvinist would just read and believe them and not try to retranslate them, they would reject Calvinism.

Intentionally not applying correct interpretation .

I have a hard time listening to men regarding scripture if it looks like a weight watchers convention….strong faith but can’t turn down a burger 🤷🏻‍♂️

@JC-gu2rn

2 ай бұрын

Careful…. They didn’t listen to John the Baptist either eating only locusts & honey.

Because people’s reading comprehension levels go from poor to outstanding. The worse the reading comprehension level the more Calvinist you get.

Calvinisms favorite hermeneutic: attempt to interpret the complicated lexicon first then superimpose that on the more elementary lexicon. And let’s use wicked men to lead the charge…. Augustine, Calvin and so on. The real problem is the Bible isn’t an “answer book”. You interact with it.

@TylerRayHamblin

2 ай бұрын

So don’t let “wicked men” lead the charge but we can let you lead it? Tell me how you come to the conclusion that the Bible isn’t an answer book? It literally has the answer to man’s biggest questions…

@Randall_beatley

2 ай бұрын

Can you find me a man who isn’t wicked who isn’t named Jesus??

@dman7668

2 ай бұрын

Christ left us his apostles and sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church through the bishops for this exact reason.

The different versions (except for a few) are differences of translation not to change its truth.