The Explicit & the Implicit

Is 25 years ago. My pastor had to be a copy of the magazine on holding him. I never heard of before, nor the ministry. The published I took it home, go and read it and read it again. That's because the articles addressed important issues, eternal issues, in fact related to my profession as a television journalist. They help me see the significance of my role as a Christian in the workplace.

They also help me understand the importance of developing a Christian worldview to look at all of life through the lens of Scripture, that magazine was table talk. I became a subscriber at 25 years later, I haven't missed an issue. I look back and marvel at how God use this one magazine change my life. To the extent that I modern out to be the host of Renewing Your Mind with RC Sproul.

If you'd like a free trial subscription to table talk, please go to Renewing Your Mind.org/table talk when we read the Bible.

Sometimes the teaching is clear, but when it's not, we can get ourselves into trouble.

The problem comes when we did dose 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, we avoid the error of drawing something from Scripture that simply not there. Welcome to Renewing Your Mind. We are featuring Dr. Hersey's groceries knowing Scripture is giving us time-tested principles that enrich our study of God's word and today he's going to point out the difference between the explicit and the implicit as we continue our series on principles of interpretation by which we can come to a mature understanding of Scripture when 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 as an abstract principle is the principle we need to get a hold of and 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. We are 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 it's 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 forbid, no, 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 at 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 at first from the Scripture that there is a Trinity. The word is nowhere to be found.

The problem comes when we deduce 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 the 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, namely 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 covered the minute because that just really gets the Angels worked up on their level come down 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 allusion to 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 intermarry 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 his 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 are godly, righteous, heroic people, but the line of the sun from K reads like a rogues gallery one vicious center after another and 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 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 a further inference is that the thing that Paul is 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 when we draw implications that are directly in conflict with something the Scripture specifically teaches 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, or from God the son can natural man in his fallen state. Does he have the moral ability on his own to choose Jesus Christ 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 believe is 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 that text 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 in 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 logical category. Whoever does say will receive be 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 about 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 argue a lot, you certainly have the ability to go outside by the settlor. 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 I suspect that what 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. Here's 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, and yet I hear preachers all the time.

Say everybody can come.

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 made 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. Here's 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 say 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 it all the time when a 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 bring 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 full orbit doctrinal meaning to every time we see a particular word salvation. The 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 way so 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 money is by marrying somebody that say because sanctification follows justification. So if a person is sanctified. If 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 to say the third possibility is 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 viruses woman is saved to choppers not using the 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 that 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 that certain words like salvation, justification, 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 give 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. He 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 full 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 of 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 the next will all of this, it does reveal the need to study, doesn't it, reading the Bible is not a casual passive exercise that requires diligence your listing to Renewing Your Mind on this Wednesday Bible you web. Thank you for being with us this is just one of 12 messages that Dr. RC Sproul taught in the series called billing Scripture interpreting the Bible is like all of the sciences is governed by rules that RC lays out the basic guidelines for understanding, interpreting and applying Scripture to show how to find the true meaning you can request this for DVD set when you contact us today with a donation of any amount you can reach us by phone at 800-435-4343 go online to Renewing Your Mind.Ward. We also want you to have the PDF study guide for the series that provides an outline of each message study questions and suggestions for further reading. Once you completed your request, we will add the study guide to your online learning library.

The extra content provides more ways to learn about interpreting and applying Scripture properly, so we hope you'll contact us today to request the series should dinner on light addresses Renewing Your Mind.Ward in our phone number 800-435-4343, the Psalms and Proverbs are two of the five books that make up what we call wisdom literature and we need to read and interpret them differently than other parts of Scripture look at it for what is practical wisdom principles that can serve you in your every day struggles with life. Don't confuse the progress moral absolutes. They were never intended to be read that they were never set forth for us as a tent and then RC will have more to say about that tomorrow and we hope you'll join us for Renewing Your Mind