One of the things about Bible study is that what may seem clear to you may be not be clear to someone else. (Ex - meat sacrificed to idols) Frequently in such a case even many well-educated theologians resort to the kind of rhetoric that goes like: "You've got to be an idiot not to see it the way I see it." or perhaps even a more severe accusations of "heresy" or the like shrouded in religious terminology. (See Calvin's style of arguing) But in reality such a reaction is often because the person has no idea how else to defend his interpretation. In fact often people use the word "clearly" in an argument on a point which is actually unclear. Don't use the word "clearly" in an argument unless everyone agrees that the point is in fact clear, and not just clear to you!

Everyone uses principles to interpret the Bible, though they may no be able to verbalize those principles. What are some of those principles?

One principle of bad Bible study is known as eisogesis - which basically means to read into the Bible rather than reading out of it. Such a person approaches the Bible trying to justify his chosen lifestyle or ideas rather than deriving his life and ideas from the Bible. Often such a person approaches particular passages with a "how can I get around wha it says" type of attitude rather than making an honest attempt at deducing what the author actually has in mind.

Often used in combination with eisogesis is over-allegorizing passages. This is one way to make the Bible say whatever you want it to say. This is particularly used with regards to historical events. Though a person may claim that his conclusion or application is based upon the Bible, yet it may have little correlation to what the Bible actually meant.

On the opposite extreme is taking things too literally. For example is says in Matthew 5:29 "If your righ eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you." I've heard of a man who literally did that. Sometimes the literal interpretation is not the correct one. At times the Bible uses figures of speech, poetic forms of speech like hyperbole to get a point across, whereas the literal interpretation would not be what the author intended.

In contrast, the Grammato-historical hermeneutic is a good principle to use. This is basically trying to interpret the Bible in the way it is written, using Semantics based upon syntax, contextual interpretation, consistency, possible versus probable interpretation. The objective is to try to understand what the author meant based upon what he said. The Bible is assumed to represent actual history in those texts which use rhetoric one would expect in describing historical events. But it is also acknowledged that allegorical connections are often meant to be drawn from actual historical events.
 

By now I suspect many readers are in the "how can we get around what the Bible says" mode. Given that the feminist culture  tends to be predominant in much of Christianity today, I purposely chose such a passage to invoke such a reaction. Bad hermeneutics often comes from a "how can we get around what the Bible says" type of mentality. Popular theology is often in conflict with Biblical theology.

Here's an example of using the possible versus probable hermeneutic to interpret an "ambiguous" verse.

So we have two interpretations. Need we leave it at that? Certainly not. Now we have to figure out which is more probable. First of all we note that divorcing and remarrying are not unrelated. For a person to remarry, they must logically first divorce out of a married situation. Divorce preceeds remarriage. And so also in Jesus' statement the word "divorce" preceeds "marries another". So far this supports the logical "and" concept. Furthermore if Jesus meant "or" then why didn't he say "or" and eliminate the ambiguity. The word in Greek "kai" is never translated "or". In fac there is a special word in Greek "eite" which is used for situations of "whether A or B" or "if A or if B", such as is used in 2Cor 1:6 for example. But it isn't used here. Why? So again we see the logical "and" is supported in this by the fact that Jesus could have phrased it differently if he meant something else. Next is the issue of consistency with the rest of the Bible concerning marriage. "Adultery" is normally thought of as involving a sexual act with someone other than your legitimate spouse. But if we interpret Mark to mean that he who doesn't remarry after divorce is nonetheless still guilty of adultery even though there is no sex with others. Such an interpretation has little consistency with the rest of the Bible. So such an interpretation through grammatically possible is highly improbable.

What else can we learn from these verses? Does divorce nullify a marriage? Do the divorced still have obligations towards their ex-spouse? If divorce nullifies a marriage, then why would remarriage to someone else constitute adultery? The logical deduction is that divorce does not nullify a marriage. (See also Marriage, Divorce, and Adultery)

There is a division in the Christian community over this issue. Those of an Augustinian-Calvinist background (namely Catholics and those of the Reformed theology) hold that the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to us, while many Arminians, varieties of evangelicals, and those of a Western or Eastern Orthodox theology believe that though we have been affected by Adam's sin, the guilt of Adam's sin in particular has not been imputed to us.

What does the Bible have to say on this issue? First of all does i say anything explicitly? While Adam is mention a few times in the New Testament, the only times relevant to this issue are in 1Cor 15:22 and Romans 5:12-21. Let's deal first with 1Cor 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." The context of 1Corinthians 15 is dealing with physical death and physical resurrection. We notice no mention of sin or guilt here. It's essentially stating that humans die, but Christians shall be raised to life. As nothing much more relevant to the subject can be derived explicitly from this verse concerning the topic best to move on to the passage in Romans, where I've done an exegetical analysis which can be found at http://www.bcbsr.com/books/rom5b.html. But we're still left with some ambiguity. Some may read the passage and conclude that guilt is imputed, while others like myself don't hold to such an interpretation, even after a thorough analysis of the syntax.

However a stronger argument can be made when considering the implications of each interpretation, and whether such implications are consistent with the rest of the Bible. I included such an argument in that study guide as well. For if God holds people responsible for things they have no control over, then how is that consistent with how God speaks of His judicial nature in the Bible? It simply isn't. Though I could digress further to entertain armchair theologians. Or some would say that we were essentially a par of Adam and therefore we were actually involved in committing the sin. But God says, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." Deuteronomy 24:16 If we're reckoned guilty for our own sin and not our parent's sin, then it seems consisten that neither are we reckoned guilty for Adam's sin. So there's a problem with the internal consistency with the interpretation of imputed guilt. And therefore the derivation of such an interpretation based solely upon the passage in Romans may be grammatically possible but improbable especially when considering what the rest of the Bible says.

First is the word "submit". Submission is only used in relationship with a recognized authority figure. But the question then is whether everyone should recognized everyone else as their legitimate authority figure. So let's move on to see whether the context specifies distinct authority figures or it indicates that everyone should be recognized as a legitimate authority figure.

Verse 22 goes on to say, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." Does it go on to say "husbands submit to your wives"? No it doesn't. Furthermore it goes on to say in Eph 6:1 "Children, obey your parents in the Lord." Does it go on to say "Parents obey your children"? No it does not. And furthermore it goes on to say in Eph 6:5, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters." Does it go on to say "Masters obey your slaves"? No it does not. So the context does not support the "mutual submission" concept.

What about correlation with the rest of the Bible or in particular with regards to the New Testament commands? No where does it affirm for example for a husband to submit to his wife. In fact it contradicts the above analysis of 1Timothy 2:11-14. But also notice for example in Colossians 3:
18  Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19  Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
20  Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.
21  Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.
22  Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything;

The positions of "wife", "child", and "slave" are never spoken of as positions of authority over "husbands", "parents", or "masters". And wha of the Old Testament? Isaiah speaks of the shameful condition of Israel saying, "As for My people, children are their oppressors, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, And destroy the way of your paths." Is 3:12

So while it may be argued that the "mutual submission" concept is a possibility based upon the syntax of Eph 5:21 alone, yet it is not a possibility based upon the semantics, the context and the continuity with the res of the Bible.

First of all in his argument concerning divorce and remarriage Jesus quotes two verses from Genesis, namely Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:2 saying, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? Matthew 19:4,5 Thus we can say that God's intention was for marriage to be between a man and a woman, which is inherent in the gender differences between Adam and Eve. And so throughout the Bible all examples of marriages are between a man and a woman. So also we can infer from the phrase "the two shall become one flesh" that sex was to be limited to the marriage relationship. Of course there are many cross references to validate such an interpretation that homosexuality has no place in the practice of Biblical Christianity. But the point here is when you're reading the Old Testament, ask yourself not only what is God saying, but what is the principle behind what is being said. And then go on to derive applications from those principles.

Question 165: What is Baptism?
Answer: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Chris has ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.

Question 166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?
Answer: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.
 

But in speaking on this subject the Reformed Theologist John Calvin over-allegorizes the analogy between baptism and circumcision. For while circumsion was the sign of the Old Covenant and Baptism of the New, the covenants themselves are essentially different.
 

Other than trying to make the general analogy between circumcision and baptism, Calvin provides little scriptural support for his theory of infan baptism. It's an example of bad theology and arguably a false gospel. (See also Infant Baptism)