At last year's National Religious Broadcasters convention, Michael Horton sat down with Kay Arthur to discuss Precept Ministries and the Inductive Bible Study method that Jack and Kay Arthur have taught to thousands of people every year, since the 1970s. This interview is excerpted from the original interview, which was recorded for the White Horse Inn radio program. The text has been edited slightly for publication.MR: What exactly is the inductive method?KA: The inductive method is a method that teaches you to observe the text for yourself and find out what it says. To interpret it in the light of what it says, by comparing Scripture with Scripture, because Scripture interprets Scripture. So that you understand what it means. Understanding what it says, and what it means, then leads to the third process that keeps happening as you observe and interpret, How does this apply to me? How am I to live in the light of that? What am I to believe? Not all application is necessarily action. Application can be a change of mind, you know. And so it's saying, "Oh, I believe this. Now this is the truth. I will change my mind and embrace that doctrine, that teaching." All of that leads to transformation. Now what did Jesus say through the Apostle Paul in Romans? He gives the gospel in the first eleven chapters. He lays it out-how it affects Jew, Gentile, everybody. And in Romans 11, he closes by saying "from him, through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory for ever and ever." This is salvation.MR: Are you saying that by using the inductive method there will be only one interpretation of that passage?KA: Yes! And you know what is so neat-what is so absolutely neat-is we teach all different denominations. We're all across Euro-Asia. And we teach charismatic and noncharismatic. There is Precept in some Russian Orthodox churches. There's Precept in Catholic churches, and Protestant churches. And the thing is that we don't go in to teach our doctrine, but we go in to teach them how to study. And as they begin to study, they come-if you handle the text with integrity-they come to the same conclusion, because God means to be understood, you know. And the problem is-what we do is we get our systematic theology, normally, from our denomination. We read their statement of faith. And the statement of faith says this is what we believe about Jesus' first coming, Second Coming, or we don't believe that. Or this is what we believe about redemption. So then we put on those theological glasses. You have on glasses, OK. If I put those glasses on, and I tried to look through them, you know, everything would be blurry. But even when we put on our own theological glasses, we read the Word of God and we say, "Oh, that must mean this." Instead of "this is what it says, this is what it means." So we need to take off our theological glasses.
We need to observe the text, find out what it says, what it means. And when we see what it says, interpretation falls into your lap. Even in difficult passages like Hebrews chapter 6-if you study the whole book of Hebrews you know the purpose, you know who the author is talking to, you know the circumstances, you find out everything he says about the believers in there, then you don't have that problem with Hebrews 6. And eventually-and if you do, you leave it alone-because eventually all throughout the Scripture-Scripture never contradicts Scripture-so that's why you should study a book of the Bible, not just topically. You should study the Bible book by book. And then you see that they integrate, and then you're going to come up with the same interpretation. We see it all the time.MR: What would you say to those who said, "Well, we all come to the Scriptures, of course, with glasses on-you can never really take the glasses off-especially if Scripture interprets Scripture, and if the system of Scripture arises out of the process of interpreting Scripture in the light of Scripture. Every Calvinist, every Lutheran, every Arminian is going to say that "our" interpretation is the one that anyone just normally reading the Bible is going to come up with. Is there a danger in saying that-because this isn't a church-the interpretation that we can come up with through a method such as inductive Bible study will be without presuppositions? Can that really happen? Don't we end up having a theology, even if we are not trying to impose it on the Scriptures?KA: I think that it can only happen if we are willing to let the Scripture speak for itself. So, for instance, before I began studying inductively I was once taught a doctrine about a separate Bride of Christ. I, in turn, taught it so well that some scholars were really questioning whether I might be right. Because I was taught it well, I studied it through those theological glasses. I grabbed Scriptures, and one of the things I taught was that you can lose your inheritance. I mean, I was known for being able to teach this and teach it well. I was studying the book of Romans. I got to Romans chapter 8. Now, though, I was studying it inductively. I realized I had taught it wrong. Now, I have a choice: my ego, or pleasing God by handling God's Word accurately. I stood up and said, "I have taught you improperly. And I discovered that I was wrong. No Christian can lose their inheritance." And I saw it there in the Scriptures. So I had to change that.
People will say to me, "you're Calvinistic." Then when they hear my prophecy, and they say, "What are you? You're a mongrel." And I say, "My systematic theology has come from the Word of God because I study it book by book." I don't know what Calvin taught. I've never studied Calvin. But I have studied the Word of God. And I know the Bible teaches that we're chosen. I know that the Bible teaches that God chose me before the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1 says it. It's very clear. 1 Peter 1 says it. I don't understand it all, but I stand in awe. So, no I'm not Calvinistic. I don't even know what he taught. But I know what the book says. And so that's what we have to know. We don't need to be taught, "OK, now this is God's view on Israel." You know, there are so many views on Israel. What does God say? You go through and mark every reference, let's say, just to the land. You mark every reference to the land of Israel. You make a list of what you've learned. It's not a political issue in Israel. It's not an Arab issue. It's not a Jewish issue. It's not whether Israel is pleasing God or not. It's what does God say? "The earth is his, the fullness thereof." He has marked out the boundaries. This is his land. He gave it to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their descendants as an everlasting possession. Now that's what it says.MR: Now of course there are different interpretations of how that promise is fulfilled. If you interpret the Old in light of the New, instead of the New in light of the Old, that's a pretty big hermeneutical difference.KA: But you know what? All you have to do is take it and mark it through the Bible. Take and mark Israel, all the way through the Bible. Make your own list, and see what it says. I'm not saying forget theology, but I'm saying this: God did not give truth just to theologians. God gave every believer the mind of Christ-1 Corinthians chapter 2. I have the mind of Christ. I can know the things of God. And people begin to say, "Oh, that's a theologian. I can't debate a theologian." You're to know the Word of God. I'm not to answer for anybody else's theology. But I'm to answer for how I handle the Word of God, and that's why I am to study, to show myself approved unto God. I am to be put to the test, and found approved-"approved unto God, a workman that needs not be ashamed, handling accurately the Word of God." That means cutting it straight. You know, I am to cut it straight. And I'm going to answer for my work.
