Picture this: Two seasoned pastors read the same verse about God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. One concludes God determines all things, including human choices. The other insists we have ultimate freedom to accept or reject God’s grace. Same Hebrew text, same Greek manuscript, opposite conclusions.

What’s going on here? The difference isn’t in their seminary training or their knowledge of ancient languages. It’s something much more fundamental: their understanding of who God is shapes how they read every single verse of Scripture.

This brings us to a crucial concept called hermeneutics—the science and art of Bible interpretation. Hermeneutics involves the principles and methods we use to understand what Scripture means. And here’s the key insight: our doctrine of God functions as the interpretive lens through which every Bible text is filtered, making it the most crucial foundation for sound hermeneutics.

 

DOCTRINE OF GOD AND BIBLE INTERPRETATION: GOD IS OUR STARTING POINT

Scripture doesn’t leave us guessing about God’s fundamental nature. From Genesis to Revelation, we encounter a God who declares, “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose'” (Isaiah 46:9-10).

This isn’t just poetic language. Paul reinforces this truth when he writes God “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11). The Bible portrays a God whose sovereignty is absolute, whose knowledge is exhaustive, and whose purposes are unchangeable.

From a Reformed perspective, this understanding of God’s character must serve as our interpretive foundation. When we approach Scripture, we’re not starting with neutral assumptions. We’re beginning with what Scripture itself teaches about the One who inspired it. God’s exhaustive sovereignty over all reality—including human hearts and choices—becomes the non-negotiable framework within which we understand every passage.

The alternative? Well, without a stable, biblical doctrine of God anchoring our hermeneutics, we’d have interpretive chaos. Scripture interpretation becomes a free-for-all where personal preference and cultural assumptions reign supreme.

 

WHERE DOCTRINE SHAPES INTERPRETATION: REAL EXAMPLES

Consider how different views of God lead to dramatically different interpretations of key passages:

Romans 9 provides a perfect case study. When Paul writes about Jacob and Esau, declaring that God’s choice was made “before they were born or had done anything good or bad,” Reformed interpreters see God’s absolute sovereignty in election. But those who begin with assumptions about human autonomy must find ways to make the passage about something other than God’s unconditional choice—often suggesting it’s about nations rather than individuals, or God’s foreknowledge of future faith.

The interpretive difference stems from competing views of God’s nature. Does God’s sovereignty extend to the ultimate destiny of human souls, or is it limited by human free will?

John 6:44 presents another telling example. Jesus states, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” Reformed hermeneutics, grounded in God’s absolute sovereignty, understands this as irresistible grace—God’s drawing always accomplishes its purpose. Alternative interpretations, beginning with different assumptions about God’s relationship to human will, see resistible grace that can be frustrated by human choice.

Even our understanding of suffering gets shaped by our doctrine of God. When Job loses everything, Satan acts only within divine permission (Job 1-2). When Isaiah declares God creates both “well-being” and “calamity” (Isaiah 45:7), Reformed interpretation sees God’s sovereign decree encompassing all events, including those we find difficult. Competing theological systems must explain away such passages or limit God’s involvement in painful circumstances.

 

HISTORICAL PRECEDENT: THE REFORMED APPROACH

This isn’t a novel approach to Scripture. John Calvin built his entire hermeneutical method on the foundation of God’s absolute sovereignty. He famously declared Scripture must interpret Scripture, but this principle assumed a proper understanding of God’s nature as revealed throughout the biblical text.

The Westminster Confession captures this approach perfectly: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself” (WCF 1.9). But this circular-sounding statement makes perfect sense when we understand that Scripture consistently testifies to God’s sovereign nature. We interpret unclear passages in light of clear ones, and the clearest truth of all is God’s supreme authority over His creation.

History validates this approach. Reformed churches have maintained interpretive consistency for centuries, while theological traditions that compromise divine sovereignty tend toward doctrinal drift. When we anchor our hermeneutics in a robust doctrine of God, we preserve both the Bible’s authority and interpretive stability.

 

ANSWERING THE CRITICS

“But aren’t you committing the error of eisegesis—imposing your theological system on Scripture?” critics ask. This objection misses a crucial point: everyone brings presuppositions to Bible interpretation. The question isn’t whether we have assumptions, but whether our assumptions align with Scripture’s own testimony.

Reformed presuppositions don’t come from philosophical speculation—they emerge from Scripture’s consistent portrayal of God’s character. When we begin with God’s absolute sovereignty, we’re not imposing external categories but submitting to what the Bible teaches about its divine Author.

The “plain reading” objection also misses the mark. No text exists in a theological vacuum. Those who claim to read Scripture “plainly” often bring Enlightenment assumptions about human autonomy that are just as systemic as Reformed theology—only less explicitly biblical.

The consistency test proves telling: Reformed interpretation produces remarkable internal coherence across the canon. Alternative systems regularly require explaining away clear statements about God’s sovereignty or human inability.

 

WHY THIS MATTERS FOR EVERY CHRISTIAN

This isn’t just academic theology. How we understand God’s nature affects every aspect of Christian life.

In worship, our doctrine of God determines whether we approach Him as the absolutely sovereign Creator or as a cosmic servant waiting for our decisions.

In times of suffering, we find comfort either in God’s meticulous sovereignty or in hoping He’ll somehow work around circumstances beyond His control.

In evangelism: Even evangelism changes based on our starting assumptions. If salvation ultimately depends on God’s sovereign choice and irresistible grace, we proclaim the gospel with confidence that God will save His elect. If salvation hangs on human decision, evangelism becomes an exercise in persuasion rather than faithful proclamation.

 

DOCTRINE OF GOD AND BIBLE INTERPRETATION: THE NON-NEGOTIABLE FOUNDATION

Our view of God isn’t just one doctrine among many—it’s the controlling centre that determines how we read every passage of Scripture. Getting God right isn’t the goal of Bible interpretation; it’s the prerequisite.

Reformed theology offers the most biblically consistent and historically proven foundation for faithful hermeneutics. When we begin with Scripture’s own testimony about God’s absolute sovereignty, comprehensive knowledge, and unchangeable purposes, we discover the Bible interprets itself with remarkable clarity and consistency.

The question isn’t whether our doctrine of God affects our biblical interpretation. It absolutely does. The question is whether we’ll let Scripture shape our understanding of God’s nature, or whether we’ll impose foreign assumptions on the biblical text.

Let’s choose our foundation carefully. Everything else depends on it.

 

DOCTRINE OF GOD AND BIBLE INTERPRETATION: RELATED FAQs

How do contemporary Reformed scholars apply this principle in their interpretation of Scripture? John Piper consistently begins his exegesis with what he calls “Christian Hedonism”—the idea that God’s ultimate goal is His own glory. This shapes how Piper interprets passages that talk about God’s purposes and human lives. RC Sproul emphasised that God’s holiness is the foundation for understanding all biblical texts about sin, salvation, and sanctification. Both scholars demonstrate starting with robust theological convictions about God’s nature leads to more consistent Bible interpretation than attempting neutrality.

• What about studying the Bible using grammar and history? Doesn’t that give us unbiased interpretation? The Grammatical-Historical method is valuable but not theologically neutral. Even determining what constitutes proper “historical context” requires theological assumptions about God’s relationship to history and human culture. Reformed scholars like Vern Poythress argue the Grammatical-Historical method works best when anchored in sound systematic theology, particularly a proper understanding of God as both transcendent and immanent. The method itself presupposes that God communicates meaningfully through human language and history.
• What role does the Holy Spirit play in Bible interpretation according to Reformed theology? Reformed theology teaches that the Holy Spirit illumines Scripture for believers, but this illumination operates through means, not apart from careful study and sound hermeneutical principles. The Spirit doesn’t bypass the need for proper theological foundations but works through them. As John Frame argues, the Spirit’s illumination confirms what Scripture teaches about God’s nature rather than contradicting systematic theological study. This prevents subjective “Spirit-led” interpretations that conflict with clear biblical teaching about God’s character.
• How do Reformed scholars handle apparent contradictions between divine sovereignty and human responsibility? Rather than resolving the tension by limiting either God’s sovereignty or human responsibility, Reformed scholars like DA Carson and Paul Helm embrace what they call “compatibilism.” They argue apparent contradictions disappear when we properly understand God’s transcendent relationship to created reality. God’s exhaustive sovereignty doesn’t eliminate genuine human choice but establishes the framework within which authentic human agency operates. This theological foundation prevents forced interpretations that diminish either divine or human agency.
• What about Progressive Revelation? Doesn’t this undermine the idea of consistent theological foundations? Progressive Revelation enriches rather than undermines consistent theological foundations. Reformed scholars like Richard Gaffin Jr demonstrate that while God reveals Himself progressively through redemptive history, His essential character remains unchanged. Earlier revelations aren’t contradicted by later ones but find their fulfillment and fuller explanation. A proper doctrine of God’s immutability provides the foundation for understanding how progressive revelation maintains unity while adding clarity and detail.

How do we respond to modern challenges about objective Bible interpretation? Reformed thinkers like Alvin Plantinga and Kevin Vanhoozer argue that modern concerns about bias actually support the Reformed approach. Since everyone brings assumptions to Bible interpretation, the real question is: which assumptions are trustworthy? Reformed scholars believe that starting with biblical assumptions about God’s nature gives us more reliable foundations than either pure human reason or modern scepticism. Our doctrine of God as truthful and communicative gives us confidence that we can understand Scripture meaningfully.

 

DOCTRINE OF GOD AND BIBLE INTERPRETATION: OUR RELATED POSTS

• Verbal Plenary Inspiration: Why We Affirm Every Word of Scripture
• Bible Inerrancy Explained: Answering Today’s Toughest Challenges