Is it permissible on BH to ask a question of only one specific theological camp, excluding all others?

Question

This question seems much more appropriate for the Christianity SE site as it asks for one specific theological explanation regarding a number of bible verses which an "opposing" theology considers important. Is it permissible on BH-SE to invite or dis-allow answers based upon theological position?

Answer 1

As long as all are invited for purpose of contrast

Being curious about how a certain doctrinal tradition applies hermeneutics to a specific passage could be a very interesting hermeneutical study.

But, to avoid bias, it would need to invite all doctrinal traditions, including non-trinitarian, but every tradition must be clearly identified.

The purpose of the site is to study hermeneutics, not censor or support theological perspectives.

You could request a specific theological tradition, but all should be welcome as answers.

We would also want a contrast to make the answer helpful to our understanding of how different hermeneutics would be applied differently.

Differing C.SE and H.SE

Hermeneutics.SE studies Bible study methods specifically.

Christianity.SE studies Christian doctrine according to a known, accepted tradition that supported any given doctrine.

So, "what our theology ought to be" is the gap that is not discussed on either site. Accordingly, "What doctrine should we believe from this passage?" won't have a place on either site.

Between these, it must be certain that the question is not essentially getting at the doctrine from a specific tradition, but the hermeneutics that a tradition might tend to use in contrast to another tradition.

If you are asking what Charismatics think about spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 13, I'd say that's a question for Christianity.SE.

If you're asking to compare the hermeneutical explanation of verses about spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 13 between Baptists and Charismatics, that would be on-topic. But, the question should cite which those verses are.

---

Here would be a worthy example:

Example question:

How do Baptist and Charismatic hermeneutics differ over 1 Cor 13:10

1 Corinthians 13:10 (NASB)

but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

Cessationists, such as may be Baptists, argue that this verse means that the spiritual gifts have "been done away with".

Continualists, such as may be Charismatics, argue that this verse does not apply to spiritual gifts.

What is the difference in their Bible study methods?

Example answer:

The core difference is how they view the words "when" and "perfect".

Overlap

Both see spiritual gifts as applying from v8...

1 Corinthians 13:8 (NASB)

Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

At some point in the future, love will endure, but knowledge and spiritual gifts will pass away, along with likely other things.

The difference is about whether one's theology says that this time has come.

Cessationists

Cessationists see "when the perfect comes" as having applied to the arrival of the Church. They often believe that this "perfect" state has a definition that requires some systematic [theology] understanding, cross-referencing many verses. One common belief used to define "perfect" comes from Dispensationalism, where "we are in the Church age". Since we are now in that age, they believe that we are in a different age from when Paul was writing.

Calvinists are not cut-and-dry Cessationist, but may often be associated with Covenant theology, still seeing how God's promises apply at different stages in human history. They may also apply this "transition of the age" to argue the same, that spiritual gifts have passed.

Continualists

Charismatics, Pentacostals, and many others who believe the gifts to still be active will often define "perfection" as the next life, or when Jesus returns, or when we see God face-to-face. They may use the

Essentially, this presumes that "the imperfect will pass away" is a reverence to v12...

1 Corinthians 13:12 (NASB)

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

This means that this "perfect" time has not yet come, so there is no indication of anything "imperfect" having passed away.

These doctrinal streams will argue that v8 says that "knowledge" will also pass away, but we still have knowledge. So to them, this is an indication that we are not yet in the age where spiritual gifts have passed away either.

Comparison

The Cessationist streams tend to use a hermeneutic that depends on cross-referencing. Arguably, it isn't a hermeneutic, but purely a systematic theology. Still, this is the method they use to interpret this passage. It is heavily intellectual and examines many different statements from different angles, having sophisticated explanations for the words that are most relevant.

The Continualist streams tend to use a more "at-face-value" hermeneutic. They will focus on the context: Love, that Paul's purpose is to explain how love will endure even the greatest of things, even the concept of knowledge itself. The purpose is not to give a timeline for when spiritual gifts will stop. This isn't a less intellegent or less correct argument, but it is not as complex nor as sophisticated in how it is developed. It is much more of a hermeneutic than a system since it does not depend on theological frameworks to define words. It uses hermeneutics of "over-arching theme and purpose" and "at-face-value".

---

What a good question would need

It would stray off topic if we were to examine a common reference to "spiritual gifts" and "the future", such as Joel 2. Then, it would become a question of, "What should our theology be?". While Joel 2:28 cf Acts 2:17 would make for a very interesting study, and may guide us to what we should believe, the could not be addressed in a purely hermeneutical question about 1 Cor 13.

The example question cites Baptists and Charismatics specifically, but the answer includes Pentecostals and Calvinists. That would be very appropriate since all traditions should be welcome in the answers.

And, the question shows research:

1. It has a specific Bible text
2. It names particular traditions of interest, more than one

And, the question doesn't seek to make too much presumption about any specific traditions, only broad trends. Baptists and Charismatics aren't used in a categorical way, but only as examples to be both specific and demonstrate some prior understanding and/or "research effort".

The answer is objective and doesn't try to favor one over the other.

Answers that address other doctrinal streams could be accepted. But, all answers should include the specific doctrinal streams described in the answer.

Answer 2

Speaking generally, there is a tension on BH.SE between trying to keep questions theologically neutral, and focused on the text, and keeping such questions scoped tightly enough to get a good answer to the question.

Typically, questions should be theologically neutral as far as possible, and aim at understanding the authorial intent of a single specific text. However, this can cause various issues, including...

---

1. A single topic/issue comes up repeatedly through scripture and spins off a large number of very similar questions, each of which is somewhat "entitled" to exist as it's a different text, even though the answers are often somewhat interchangeable.

In these cases it can at times be appropriate to aim for a 'canonical' question where a repeated question can have its answers focused in a single place, which is what the specified question above attempts to do.

---

2. A question touches on such a large scope that it becomes difficult to expect or provide good quality answers within the SE format.

In these cases it can be helpful to apply further scoping to a question to try and keep responses within a tight enough bound to produce good quality answers.

---

One extreme that we're always cautious of is where a Question automatically assumes a certain position, especially implicitly. Importing an assumption into a text can distort readings of the text and disrupt the process of exegesis, making questions especially unhelpful for site visitors, who may mistake that assumption for a known fact.

Speaking as a Moderator, I would generally discourage questions taking this type of approach, and there's a good chance of them being closed by the community.

In this specific case, the Question only really exists because of the assumption, and so it isn't as if it's intentionally filtering out another viewpoint, and it's declaring the assumption explicitly, reducing the risk of confusion for readers. The scope and style of the question seem fairly sensible, and it should be able to produce some good quality answers, though probably with a great number of comments.

It's not clear cut enough that I'd opt to intervene in any way (besides possibly disabling Comments if they get out of hand...) - the community should decide whether to Close it for now, and I'd be interested in hearing other people's takes on the matter.

Answer 3

The two sites used to have overlapping scopes, which did at times make it tricky to navigate how the two sites really worked. But for the last few years we've been operating such that they now have distinct and non-overlapping scopes:

• Christianity.SE only allows exegetical questions that ask how a specific denomination or Christian group interpret a passage

• Biblical Hermeneutics.SE only allows exegetical questions that ask about a specific passage but do not require or even request answers from a particular perspective

(We don't get many questions asking how specific camps of Judaism interpret a passage, but whenever they come up we would transfer them to the Judaism site too.)

In practice, this means the two sites are intended to gather very different sorts of answers:

• Christianity.SE looks for authoritative answers from a particular Christian perspective, with quotes and references proving they hold that interpretation. This lets reader evaluate the teachings of denominations and decide for themselves if their doctrines are supported by the scriptures. Everyone should also have the experience on that site of seeing a challenging question and realising that some of their closely held beliefs are only weakly supported by scripture. It is a humbling experience.

• Biblical Hermeneutics.SE wants answers that support and prove their interpretation by detailed exegetical research. Excluding the questions that specifically ask about historical interpretation, the pedigree of an interpretation does not matter. What we want is solid exegetical evidence and arguments that help train us to be better readers of the Bible. Answers will often present the interpretations of established groups, but they'll also often present eclectic and novel interpretations. When we read this site we want to have things in the scriptures pointed out to us that we've never noticed before. We want to see a diversity of views, even if we're not actually convinced to change our interpretations and doctrines most of the time.

We could change the site scopes and allow an overlap again, but so far there hasn't really been any community desire for that. My impression was that most people thought that these two distinct scopes were working well.

Answer 4

Is it permissible on BH to ask a question of only one specific theological camp, excluding all others?

Yes. There is nothing wrong with narrowing down to a particular school of thought the scope of a question. Restricting the scope is different from restricting who is allowed to address the question.

Restrictions of scope happen every time somebody posts on Philosophy SE a question about the rationale a particular philosopher had, or on Law SE a question regarding some jurist's viewpoint. There is no reason why something like this should be precluded on BH.

This question seems much more appropriate for the Christianity SE site

The underlying post, particularly its initial version, had an import that can be paraphrased as "how mistaken are those who posit that xyz". From that standpoint, yes, it resembled a theological statement (rather than a question). It also purported the notion that interpretation of a source implies faith in what that source promotes.

A more hermeneutical approach would be a question of the sort "On what Biblical grounds (if any) do proponents of xyz support their position?", and in fact a subsequent edit was an improvement in that direction. Likewise, the OP's comment confirmed that his interest is about hermeneutical processes.

In line with what I pointed out, someone's denial of Jesus's pre-existence might not necessarily be premised on hermeneutical grounds. However, that possibility does not render the OP off-topic.