ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on February 19, 2018
Chase Chartier profile image

Chase is a recent graduate of Azusa Pacific University with a Bachelor of Arts in Business Management and a minor in Biblical Studies.

What Can We Know For Certain?

In my last semester of college I am finally taking my senior seminar. This seminar focuses on the relationship between philosophical concepts and biblical hermeneutics. So far I've taken it to be a class that establishes philosophy as the basis of our understanding and from there it influences how we both perceive and interpret the Bible. Do we perceive the Bible as inerrant or infallible? Maybe neither? Maybe it's the word of God or just man's limited account of divine intervention. I'm certain that out of everyone in the class I'm the only one that holds to an inerrant view of the Bible, even though this view has already been dismissed as 'naive'. That makes it a bit difficult to engage in our discussions when my position has already been deemed erroneous.

That being said, there happened to be a discussion the other day that I thought was interesting enough to pull me out of my writer's block. One team was presenting four methods of interpretation that would help us get closer to a consensus if not the objective meaning of biblical passages. Our recent discussions have leaned toward objectivism, the idea that there is an objective meaning to the text that is independent of what we perceive it to be. Students in the class deny the idea that the objective meaning of scripture, if it exists, is attainable in our fallible world. Combine this with the theory that the author is not the arbitrator of textual meaning (which they've made sure to do) and we have ourselves a text supposedly from God whose meaning is neither objective nor ultimately understandable.


These ideas are enough to rattle even some of the more liberal-minded theologians; what this worldview logically implies is a two-word statement that all scholars dread... Anything goes.

If it means anything then it means nothing. It's pointless. However, the argument made in the book we're reading, and the argument being laid out for this course, is that "anything goes" doesn't have to be true. We don't have to embrace the (logical) suggestion that a Christianity that includes everything, signifies nothing (paraphrasing B.B. Warfield). This course offers a third route, claiming that through the use of various hermeneutical methods, philosophical interpretive constructs, and a number of other tools we can filter through the multitude of interpretations and with enough hard work reach a majority consensus as to what the meaning of a biblical text is. Now I believe hermeneutics are important and that we should strive to use the tools we have to interpret the Bible, but the problem is that we can only come so close to the truth. If one interpretation is more objective than the other, that makes the first interpretation false. There can be levels of relevance in application but a propositional truth can't be more objective than another. 2+2=4 isn't any more objectively true than 5+5=10 (though the professors have argued about the objectivity of abstract numbers).

‚Äč This brings us back to the presentation about using methods to get closer to a consensus. The viewpoint behind the methods was that we could have a set of criteria that could evaluate the interpretation and assess whether or not the interpretation was close enough to the objective truth that it could reside within the boundaries (criteria) of solid biblical interpretation. It looks something like this:

Running Into the Same Problem

Inside the box you have the objective truth of scripture. This is the correct interpretation of the text as God intended it to be understood, what the group claimed we cannot reach. The brackets are the boundaries through which an interpretation is deemed acceptable or not. The dots inside are indicated to be valid while the ones outside fail to meet the mark. I even drew this diagram out in class because I am a visual learner and needed to get my thoughts straight. First I asked the group if they believed in a unilateral meaning to the scripture, regardless of whether or not we could attain it. Overall they agreed to some form of objectivity although it could not be reached given our human limitation. I then asked if they believed in a criteria, set of hermeneutics, or some sort of method that was able to distinguish between the acceptable interpretations and the interpretations we should discard. Obviously they said yes since that was the premise of the presentation. My final question was this, "What authority or what method defines and sets the parameters used to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable interpretations?" This was the first time no one could give an answer to one of my questions and at that moment I realized that I discovered the problem.

As I mentioned before, this third way has a flaw. In fact, the problem they have with an inerrant Bible and an objective attainable interpretation is the same problem I have with their 'almost and not-quite' method. They will admit to an objective truth even if it's not attainable. They will admit that they believe in parameters that separate interpretations. But what those in the third way can't answer is where the parameters are to be set, and who decides where to set them? It's the same exact problem they had with people who take the first route (one objective interpretation), it's just a matter of where you set the parameters. If they're set exactly around the objective interpretation as to say it's the only one, then everything outside of it is incorrect. Objective truth like this is a concern for people of the "anything goes" circle and the "we can get pretty close but no absolutes" circle. If we believe God revealed Himself in the Bible only for His message to be utterly lost in our inability to understand it (it's as strange as it sounds), then we have no foundation to stand on, no conviction behind our beliefs. But, if we believe that it's God and not us who is the arbiter of the inherent meaning and the setter of the parameters, then we can't deconstruct the text to make it mean whatever we want. We can, however, know that by the Spirit we can come to an understanding of the truths of scripture, and have confidence behind our beliefs. It would look a bit more like this:

Was this analysis helpful?

See results


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)