The core of this blog was written in correspondence, I have done my best to reformat it. Italics within parenthesis in the context of quotes is my interjection. In Bold is what I am responding to.
There is an undercurrent of liberalism amongst some "evangelical" and I use that term loosely, discussion of theology these days. I approach the following interlocutor from a stance of trying to weigh arguments based on merit and not their systems of origin. Yet sometimes these two are far to bound together to separate. This particular theological discussion was in respect to Arminianism and Calvinism. As most of you know I am unapologetically the latter.
"I do believe that these matters are important (that is Calvinism and Arminianism). But even so, it seems to me that Paul's alleged treatment of these topics are in the service to instructions about Christian unity, charity and humility. I think that too many people fail to see why these doctrines are presented."
Agreed some people often do not know why Paul writes what he does, but the answer lends itself to one interpretation or the other, not equally to both. Ultimately I think the difference is important, I disagree. Calvinism/Arminianism changes the way you conceive of the scope of redemptive history. This is no small matter, at the same time it can change what you say when you worship God and cause a restructuring of worship. But it is not as if there were no texts mentioning this, which is a hard thing to imagine, that we would be without beliefs corresponding to one of these systems.
A proper doctrine of God (and really all of theology is in relation to his action and design) is essential so that our worship can correspond to a proper view of God and not an idol we have fabricated in our head. This applied to this situation means that either Arminians or Calvinists are attributing something false to God. This may not be damning but it is serious.
"It also seems to me that there is a need for us to individually come to grips with the degree to which our intuitions and personalities influence our thinking about these matters. I suspect our own personalities have a huge role in how we process theology. Over the years, I have noticed a remarkable connection between personalities and beliefs. I guess what I am saying is that one's doctrinal beliefs are not merely a matter of biblical texts. Most people don't have this awareness and so dialogues are often unproductive."
I agree and disagree, yes intuitions shape theology. They shape everything, but hermeneutics is the unravelling of intuitions through linguistics, history, text criticism, and applying these with a few philosophical notions (biblical usually) to narrow the level of the distance between the reader and the text in the reading of the text. I am not as skeptical as to whether we can reconstruct Paul's mind. So a good reading of Scripture can undo some of these intuitions we bring to the discussion.
Sometimes in this discussion the view of Scripture of the person is the problem. Such as someone stating that, "In the O.T. Satan wasn't evil, this is because there is no evidence until the intertestamental period for Satan being considered evil."
I don't think this person is what is called a Biblicist, that is I do not think he believes that the Bible is a complete unity. Meaning this person would say when we reconstruct say John's mind and Peter's mind from their texts they may disagree. There does not exist for this person canonical progression, which in ultimate is what Jesus is, the canon progressed until it culminated in him.
The statement that Satan was not evil in the O.T. and that it was perhaps in the intertestamental period that he became so is right to a level, Jewish or specifically O.T based theology without the balance of the N.T. would be hard pressed to come to a theology of Satan and him be evil. Yet the problem is the balance of the N.T. theology, John clearly places Satan as evil from the beginning, John 8:44 has him as a liar from the beginning and in the book of Revelation 20:2 John creates a connection between Satan and the ancient serpent, tying his evil all the way back to Genesis 3.
Bringing these texts and issues up to people I have gotten the answer "Of course John thinks that, but would Peter think that?"
I believe this answer is implying that scripture can be contradictory and therefore fallible even in matters of theology. If Peter doesn't believe what John believed or even taught the opposite, the doctrine of God becomes affected.
This also leads to a neo-liberal protestant view of Scripture, that Scripture isn't the final authority but we are, at which point we are no longer Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox (I refer to the first split church from Catholicism here). We become liberals, which is in my mind antithetical to being evangelical. Evangelicalism at its heart I think is a Biblicist domain, that scripture is without error or contradiction, and that it is the final authority in manners of Doctrine, worship, and rule of life.
This belief is because God gave them authority by making them inspired. This inspiration is a special revelation above any other in my opinion, God gave us a magnificent gift, and because he is without error and good, he gave us a consistent gift. I consider the purity of scripture on par with the sinlessness of Jesus in that they come from the same method. When God incarnates himself in flesh and his message, he does so purely. The divinity of Jesus and of Scripture is an unbendable bar even when combined with humanity, divinity does not bend.
So I would agree, the way we are wired shapes our theology and this is often ignored. Yet I would add to that, does my personality detract from there existing an objective answer for this issue within scripture. In the end it isn't a salvation issue, but God through his Apostles and Prophets, Gospel writers and Former Prophets (OT historical books) made clear many things. It takes being a good reader and a logical thinker to plow through the depth of Scripture.
The questions I would ask are: does my interpretation ever change the objective truth, and does my interpretation correspond to the methods I believe are best for determining that truth?
No comments:
Post a Comment