The Explicit & the Implicit

Why do I call Romans eight this chapter in the Bible because CDS Christians for centuries.

I think of turned to Romans eight because it gives us the gospel in one chapter talks about the doctrine of the Trinity, father, son and Holy Spirit, and I had a deacon one time saying to me that this was in some way calling into question inspiration of all of Scripture and is in all of Scripture breaks and the greatest and I said well, just answer this question if you gratuitous to live dry read the first few chapters of Chronicles, which is a list of names are driving.

Romans eight and I think the answer is always Romans eight because it says everything that needs to be said about the gospel in one chapter. Romans eight a teaching series with Derek Thomas to learn more, visit Lincoln air.org/teaching series in John chapter 6, Jesus says no one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him explicit teaching of Scripture.

No one can, and yet I hear preachers all the time.

Say everybody can, that's in direct conflict and they argue on the basis of implications drawn from other portions of Scripture that is a misuse of the Bible. The method used to interpret Scripture influences what we think it says if we use the one method of entering into dangerous waters.

Thankfully, there are basic guidelines for understanding and interpreting and applying Scripture correctly. And Dr. RC Sproul is helping us apply them this week here on Renewing Your Mind, so let's continue his series. Knowing Scripture as we continue our series on principles of interpretation by which we can come to our understanding of Scripture.

What I want to do in this session is to spell out a few more practical principles that we need to master.

If are going to be able to understand the Scriptures in a coherent way. You recall that in the last session I mentioned the importance of how we relate the historical narrative on the one hand with the didactic literature on the other. The gospel in the epistle, and so on, and I mentioned that that time that we had to be careful about drawing inferences from historical narratives that would be in conflict to the clear teaching that we find in other parts of the Bible. Now that really leads us to the next principal and that is the principle that deals with the relationship between the explicit and the implicit is an abstract principle is the principle we need to get a hold of that is very simply, the rule is this that the implicit is to be interpreted in light of the explicit, not the other way around where not to interpret the explicit in light of the implicit. Another way of saying it is that the skewer or the difficult is to be interpreted in light of that which is playing and clear because that's basically the difference between that which is explicit and that which is implicit and explicit statement is one that is made forthrightly directly and clearly is what the Scriptures actually set something that is implicit is not stated directly, but rather is imply we must use our rational powers of deduction to draw inferences from the text in order to find the implications of a given passage now I want to be careful here because I don't want to be misunderstood. At this point is if I were saying that we ought never to draw implications from Scripture God for bed now.

It's very important at times necessary for us to draw inferences from the Scripture that are perfectly reasonable and indeed necessary. Maybe you've even heard people say that the Bible doesn't teach the doctrine of the Trinity and then they point out that nowhere in the New Testament does the word Trinity appear that's true, but that doesn't mean the concept of the Trinity is nowhere to be found in the Bible. The Bible teaches clearly and explicitly that God is one, there's the unity part of Trinity which means tri-unity but also teaches us clearly that Jesus is somehow God incarnate that the Holy Spirit is divine and if the father is divine. So the church had to develop a doctrine that would make sense out of these different nuances that God is one and yet the same time, there's diversity within God. And so the concept comes by necessary inference from the Scripture that there is a Trinity. The word is nowhere to be found.

The problem comes when we did produce certain things from the Bible from one passage of Scripture that then brings us into direct conflict with something that the Scripture teaches elsewhere very clearly and very plainly that's what were trying to avoid being careful with how we deal with implications. No, I like to take a few minutes to spell out the broad problem of drawing implications from Scripture and then focus our attention on what happens when indeed we bring them into conflict with explicit teaching one that we find as a result of some reasoning done on Paul's letter to the first Corinthians.

I'm thinking of the 11th chapter in the 10th verse of first Corinthians 11. We had this very strange passage for this cause ought the woman to have a covering on her head because of the Angels on this section. Paul's talking about whether women should come to church with their heads covered or uncovered with available out about in terms of the worship experience, and he adds this particular reason. He said that women ought to have their head covered because of the Angels leaders had to do it. Why does Paul make a statement about the Angels here. I have seen at least 20 term papers written by students arguing that angels have a peculiar weakness, particularly male Angels, mainly that male angels are often tempted to thoughts of lust and even beyond that to even contemplating right at the site of beautiful women particularly beautiful women whose hair for one reason or another is particularly enticing to the angelic beings and so Paul is saying look in this passage you wanted. Be careful. Be sensitive towards this inherent weakness in the angelic host there ladies keep their heads, knowing that because that's just really gets the Angels worked up on their level to combat in the middle of the church service and rape you.

Can you think of anything more outrageous than that.

In terms of biblical interpretation, but as I said I had at least 20 term papers by going that thesis. Where does it come from what comes on the basis of implications drawn from this text and from another. If we go back to the beginning of the Old Testament and we read of the creation of vitamin E than of the story of the murder of Babel at the hands of Cain and then we read that Adam and Eve have another son, Seth, and then we have this very strange passage in the opening chapters of Genesis where we read and the sons of God, intermarried with the daughters of men, and it produced kind of a grotesque race of people. Now you look at that and you say, who are the sons of God. Is this not an illusion. Angels isn't the author of Genesis telling us that angels actually began to intermarry with human women and produce this hybrid of half Angel half human. As a result of their intermarried again. That's a possible inference drawn from the text. However, we see that the phrase son of God in the Bible is not used merely for angels but its primary use as a do with those who are of a particular stripe of obedience and son ship is defined in terms of obedience and a more logical I think inference from that passages we see traced in the earlier chapters of Genesis 2 lines of descendents.

There are the descendents of Cain and the descendents of Seth and if you read the line from Seth that brings us down to Noah and those who are mentioned in that catalog of people for the most part, godly, righteous, heroic people, but the line of the sun from K reads like a rogues gallery one vicious sinner after another is very possible, as many commentators suggest that the designation sons of God. Refer to the descendents of Seth and that the daughters of men referred to the descendents of K so that the godly line in the ungodly line intermarried eight and thereby the whole world fell into corruption which was manifested at the time of Noah God.

Particularly preferred that interpretation, but I have to grant that it's not one that we must handle, but the point is, be careful, the speculation, because the other school of thought says hot. This must refer to intermarriage between angels and human ladies and pulses over here women to keep their heads covered because of the Angels and then from there comes the further inference is that the thing the Paul's worried about is a repeat of this rape of the human women by the angelic host that is recorded for us the early chapters of Genesis.

Ladies and gentlemen, that thesis is made at least 98% out of whole cloth and is implication built upon implication inference built upon inference with precious little foundation but it is passed off to us at times as if it were the clear and unambiguous teaching of sacred Scripture.

But as I said earlier it's not just the problem of fancy for irresponsible implications drawn from the text that we ought not to draw but it's a particularly problematic area.

We draw implications that are directly in conflict with something the Scripture specifically teach elsewhere. For example, one of the most controversial issues in the history of the Christian church has to do with this question. Does man in his fallenness in his sinful condition after the fall does he have within himself the moral capacity without any help from God the Holy Spirit or from God the father were from God the son can natural man in his fallen state. Does he have the moral ability on his own to choose Jesus Christ. The see of the moral disposition the necessary faculty to choose Jesus Christ as I say that is one of the oldest and most bitter points of controversy in the history of the church.

I'm going to present to verses that are often used by the various combatants in this particular controversy if I've heard it once I've heard of the thousand times the John 316 says for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes on him should not perish but have everlasting life. Now the question is what does that verse teach about fallen man's ability to believe on Christ without any assistance from God.

What does it say explicitly I think we can answer that without bias without prejudice by strictly applying the formal laws of immediate inference to the text their friends.txt says nothing explicitly about who will believe or who will not believe, about who can believe or who is not able to bully it certainly leaves us with the impression when the statement is given universally believes no.

It suggests that anybody can believe. Doesn't say that, but it does suggest it and it leaves us with that possibility is an inference, but it's not a necessary inference is not something that the words demand we infer what the text explicitly says is this whoever believes will not perish but have everlasting life.

So we can say said that the and logical categories.

Whoever does say will receive B or avoid be whoever believes if you believe you can be sure you want perish, and you will have everlasting life. That's what it teaches explicitly and implicitly. It might suggest that anybody on their own steam can believe in Jesus can we come over to John. The six chapter and Jesus is talking about this very subject and Jesus says to his disciples as part of his teaching ministry.

No man can come to me unless it is given to him of the father. Let's look at what does it teach explicit and explicitly says something about human ability to respond to Jesus to come to Jesus and Jesus begins with the statement that we would classify in logic as a universal negative no man it uses. Next, the word can we know there's a difference in our language between Canon may, when the once we mix up all the time and mothers are forever correcting their children when they say can I go outside and play this afternoon. Mother says I'm sure you can.

The question however is not can you, but the question is, may you.

Are you allowed. You certainly have the ability to go outside by the settlement. What you're asking me is for my permission. So there's a difference between Canon which refers to ability and may which refers to permission. This text is dealing with ability no man can no man is able to do what took common to me. Jesus says assist take that one. No man is able to come to Jesus unless right there is something that has to happen before anybody can come to Jesus and what is that something that has to happen unless it is given to him by the father is what I think the passage teaches. I think that passage teaches explicitly that man in his fallen state is unable without some kind of help by God to come to Jesus Christ.

The passage teaches that explicitly passage in John teaches that if God gives that ability. Then whoever exercises that ability to come will indeed be say John only tells us that whoever believes will be say. He also says in chapter 6 that nobody can believe unless it's given to him by the fall. So you say that we have to be careful not to set those two in opposition or to subordinate an explicit teaching of Scripture.

No one can, yet I hear preachers all the time. Say everybody can, that's in direct conflict and they argue on the basis of implications drawn from other portions of Scripture that is a misuse of the Bible are implications must always be measured by and make subordinate to what the Scriptures explicitly teach right now there's another problem that I'd like to go over very quickly and that is that as we study the Scripture we need to be very careful of words. Again, any written document is made up of paragraphs. Paragraphs are made up of sentences, sentences are made up of clauses. Clauses are made up of word and word meaning are very important obviously to our understanding to what is being said there's a real tricky problem that we encounter frequently in our attempts to interpret the Bible is what happens we go to the Bible supposedly read the Bible for the very first time and as we come to the Bible were supposed to get our doctrine from the Bible were not supposed to take a doctrine and make the Bible fit our doctrine were supposed to make a doctrine for the Bible but suppose we come to the Scriptures and we draw out of the Scripture. Our doctrine and then when we do that we create doctrinal meanings to our language. For example, the Bible uses the word to save to be say in the past tense. The present tense the future tense and a host of tenses in between past perfect imperfect therapist, and so on all different kinds of ways that we were saved.

We were being saved we are saved we are being saved.

We shall be saved and someone in the Bible uses the verb to save in actually more ways than we do in our language we talk about saving stamps, a boxer being saved by the bell of the fight we don't mean by that that his soul was transposed to have an average reconciled to God, but rather he has been spared the calamity of the feet in the rain. We say that an army is saved from destruction or a person is saved by disease in the Bible does that all the time of the person recover from illness. He experiences salvation when the armies of Israel when a victory in battle, they experience salvation, not in the ultimate doctrinal sense, but in the very simple earthly sense, avoiding a catastrophe or being spared from some calamity but then the Bible does teach this high and holy concept of salvation.

So now for us in our doctrine.

The word salvation has a loaded meaning, and if we take it back and imply that school orb doctrinal meaning to every time we see a particular word salvation Scripture will make nonsense on the Scripture. For example, Bible teaches that women will be saved by childbearing. Also, the New Testament teaches that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband so maybe we look at that and we say always that the Bible has three doctrines of salvation three doctrines of justification.

On the one hand it teaches us that justification is by personal faith in Christ alone. But if you don't have faith in Christ alone. There's two other ways you can get saved. One is by marrying somebody that say because sanctification follows justification.

So if a person is sanctified of an unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband should have to first be justified. So the inference we draw there is that you can get saved by marrying somebody say the third possibility is of that doesn't work. The woman at least is another alternative and that is that she can have a child and if she bears a child. She automatically disabled. That's not what the Bible is talking about all about us is a woman who saves her choppers not using word salvation in the doctrinal sense, and when the Bible says that an unbelieving wife is sanctified by her believing husband doesn't mean that she is not put into the process of working out or salvation the flows out of justification is a different meaning to the term sanctification.

This is where we made our Bible dictionaries and our Bible handbooks so that we can understand certain words like salvation, justification and sanctification.

Even the word Lord.

The word Lord, sometimes in the Bible refers to geniuses kingly position at the right hand of God the highest title we can get to the other times when the title Lord is uses a simple form of polite address. Just like we use the English word, sir, or Mr. so we can jump to the conclusion anytime somebody comes up to Jesus on the street and says, Lord, that we said hi how that stranger recognize instantly that Jesus was the Messiah. You may simply have been saying good afternoon, Mr. Jesus, and so the context has to help us determine whether the exalted use of the word is in view here or a simpler version of it and by the same token, we have to be careful that we don't read back into the Bible or doctrinal meanings to particular words when the context of Scripture doesn't warrant again. The principal is context the immediate context, not just the immediate context but the context of the whole that every particular passage of Scripture must be measured and interpreted against the whole of Scripture so that we don't be guilty of setting one part over against another.

I know sometimes I can lead to despair by pointing out all the difficulties that are there but they're not that great. Really a simple Bible dictionary can be an enormous help to a layperson who's never had the benefit of studying the original language we don't need to despair. I encourage you to continue to study and the next time they were together.

I'm going to try to point out some other somewhat unusual literary forms and structures that occur in the Scriptures that it would help us if we could recognize them when receiving will do that then the next, and we look forward to that reading Scripture is different than studying Scripture.

We have so many tools and study aids available to us today to help us truly study and we need to apply these time-tested principles for interpreting and applying what we read in Scripture referred another helpful message from RC Sproul series knowing Scripture today here on Renewing Your Mind. I'm glad you could be with us timely web in 12 messages. This series teaches us about the science of interpretation. Yes, it is a science, how to discern between different genres of Scripture and what it means to interpret Scripture literally.

I hope you're encouraged to know more about how to study God's word and to help you in that quest would like to send you this full series on four DVDs to send a donation of any amount to look at her ministries and request knowing Scripture. Our number is 800-435-4343 and her web address is Renewing Your Mind.Ward. Our goal here. Look at her ministries is to equip you to study God's word and to articulate what you learn to others. That's why we do hope you'll request the series. Let me give your phone number again is 800-435-4343 if you've missed any of the programs in the series this week.

You can always go to our website and find them in the broadcast archive.

There series along with dozens of others are available to stream at any time@renewingyourmind.org will tomorrow. RC will continue this series with a look at how we should understand wisdom literature in the Bible look at it for what it is practical with principles that can serve you every day struggles with one. Don't confuse the progress moral absolutes. They were never intended to be read that way, they were never set forth for us as the 10th amendment. We hope you'll join us Wednesday for Renewing Your Mind