Thread: What Does It Mean to "Go by The Scriptures"

If so many claim to go by the Scriptures but still disagree. What are some operative procedures or elements that you use in getting the best/correct understanding and usage of the Bible?

What approaches have you found helpful, or problematic?

I have some rules...one CONTEXT first....second the whole of scripture.....third...desire absolute truth as the Spirit reveals even if it is painful...in fact expect it to contrast my human nature and reasoning....last...understand that even with all that it is likely I am off mark at least in part so I must stay humble, teachable...

When in discussions I may be the 'devil's advocate' so to speak but something must be first proved and secondly it must answer all red flags....if it's truth it will stand a fiery test...

Problematic....when all sides seem to have a really solid foundation of scripture and there is no obvious defining gaps, I embrace the reality that apart from personal revelation I just DON'T KNOW...Such as end time, pretrib, midtrib, posttrib.... I don't have clear beyond a doubt revelation so I have that in the 'I am not sure' file but also use faith in Jesus that regardless as long as I keep my eyes on HIM I will know what I need to know when I need to know it...

Originally Posted by Jonathan david

If so many claim to go my the Scriptures but still disagree. What are some operative procedures or elements that you use in getting the best/correct understanding and usage of the Bible?

What approaches have you found helpful, or problematic?

Context and delving beneath assumptions. There are many kinds of assumptions, including ones introduced by common doctrines and mindsets.

Since Colonel and Quest brought up context, I wanted to expand on that. I agree that context is an important STARTING POINT.

Problematic: When, you have an overrestrictive use of context.
Example: Jer 29:11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
A strict contextual reading would be "Well, that context is only for Israel in their particular situation. We are not Israel so it doesnt apply."

Those who are looking at "the whole of Scripture" Quest mentioned, we know there is a LOT MORE to this than immediate context, as we also need to see the reasonably extended context as well, and what it tells us of the nature of God.

I see the big picture of understanding how God is looking to bless "his people" even today.

Originally Posted by Jonathan david

Since Colonel and Quest brought up context, I wanted to expand on that. I agree that context is an important STARTING POINT.

Problematic: When, you have an overrestrictive use of context.
Example: Jer 29:11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
A strict contextual reading would be "Well, that context is only for Israel in their particular situation. We are not Israel so it doesnt apply."

Those who are looking at "the whole of Scripture" Quest mentioned, we know there is a LOT MORE to this than immediate context, as we also need to see the reasonably extended context as well, and what it tells us of the nature of God.

I see the big picture of understanding how God is looking to bless "his people" even today.

The NT is always a context for the OT. As Gentile believers in Jesus Christ we are included in God's people, we have been grafted into God's olive tree.

2 Cor 1:20 For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us.

Which makes Jer 29:11 relate to us since it is a promise to his people Israel.

WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE MAKES COMMON SENSE, SEEK NO OTHER SENSE; THEREFORE, TAKE EVERY WORD AT ITS PRIMARY, ORDINARY, USUAL, LITERAL MEANING UNLESS THE FACTS OF THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, STUDIED IN THE LIGHT OF RELATED PASSAGES AND FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS INDICATE CLEARLY OTHERWISE.

SEEK THE FIGURATIVE MEANING ONLY WHEN THE FACTS DEMAND SUCH AN INTERPRETATION

Modernism and rationalism are the logical outgrowth of forcing a figurative meaning upon a passage that is clearly literal, or vice verse.

I have used this rule since I was a student in Bible College. I do not know its origin but it works for me.