Jim Bell writes:
> Huh? The observational data has NOTHING to do with theology. If you think
> it does, please demonstrate how that is.
Glenn rejoins:
> "That which was from the beginning, which we have HEARD, which we have SEEN
> with our eyes, which we have LOOKED AT and our hands have TOUCHED--this we
> proclaim concerning the Word of life." 1 John 1:1
>
> Q.E.D.
Jim insistence on a `theological' lense for some reason reminds me
of what Festus said to Paul [Acts 26:24-27]?
And while {Paul} was saying this in his defense, Festus
*said in aloud voice, "Paul, you are out of your mind!
{Your} great learning is driving you mad."
I must confess that some of the theological views that Jim insists be
admitted really seem to me to be the product of some kind of madness(**).
I haven't read the particular theologians that Jim seems to think are
correct regarding the Scripture (***), but I have done a *lot* of thinking
about these issues over the years. The representations of their
viewpoints suggest that they have lost some of their grip on reality.
They seem so interested in systemizing principles of interpretation
that it becomes easy to end up making statements which directly
contradict the Scripture (which I think the quoted exchange demonstrates).
***
Theology should be used much more sparingly in argument than it has
on the reflector recently. Theology is not particularly reliable.
As a largely human activity, it suffers from a fatal flaw.
but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise,
... And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority
of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. ...
And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom,
but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should
not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. [1 Cor 1:26-2:5]:
It is significant that this view comes through Paul, the apostle most
qualified to speak as `a debater of this age' (Philippians 3). The others
were remarkable for their lack of such ability:
Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John, and
understood that they were uneducated and untrained men,
they were marveling, and {began} to recognize them as having
been with Jesus. [Acts 4:13]
The gospel came and was readily received by prostitutes, tax gatherers,
adulterers, the disobedient, the unruly... The trained and learned
were at a great disadvantage, and Jesus mocked them:
Nicodemus answered and said to Him, "How can these things
be?" Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher
of Israel, and do not understand these things? [John 3:9-10]
Now I am *not* saying that systemized study of theological issues
has *no* value, but I *would* go so far as to say that it is potentially
very dangerous. If we end up raising our theological traditions
above the reality of what we read in the Scripture and that which
we can hear, see, and touch, we are in danger of losing touch
with reality, even as the leaders of Israel had:
... 'And {thus} you invalidated the word of God for
the sake of your tradition. [Matt 15:6]
Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you
do not understand the Scriptures, or the power of God?" [Mark 12:24]
This is the danger that Jim's use of `theology' seems to encounter.
Understanding the Scripture doesn't require knowledge of somebody's theory
about how the ancient Hebrew's thought, or being adept at categorizing
passages according to form so that we can know what is literal or not.
It doesn't even require that we know how to read Hebrew or Greek.
All it requires is:
He who has ears to hear, let him hear
In fact relying on our own understanding is perhaps futile:
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways,"
declares the \Lord\. "For {as} the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your
thoughts. "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, And do
not return there without watering the earth, And making it bear and
sprout, And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; So
shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to
Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding
{in the matter} for which I sent it. [Isa 55:8-11]
Yet:
For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct Him?
But we have the mind of Christ. [1 Cor 2:16]
and
And as for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in
you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing
teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as
it has taught you, you abide in Him. [1 John 2:27]
Scipture comes to us through the specific intent of God to speak to us.
It has purpose that transcends the purposes understood by the human
authors. The issue of whether passages are to be taken literally or
not is not subject to textual criticism, but to a comprehension of what
is the purpose of God is in speaking to us.
We can only know these purposes by revelation. Some of the
revelation is itself in the book, perhaps all of it, but that doesn't
necessarily make it accessible to us. It requires more than just study:
Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, [Luke 24:45]
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is {a matter}
of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of
human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
[2 Peter 1:20-21]
Theological schema which raises itself above common sense and observation
is not the only type of theology that exists, but when Jim writes to Glenn:
And I would direct you to Donald Bloesch and the others I've cited for
that revision. Keeping current in theology is essential, and will do
much to clear away certain obsessions with timing and journalistic
details which the Author did not intend.
He sure seems to be giving theology more than its due. He is suggesting
that theology is the arbiter of what God's purposes in the Scripture are,
which has no Scriptural basis. His assertion that theology is `essential,'
is in direct contradiction of the Scripture and history.
If we are going to have theological discussions, my personal preference
would be that we base them a lot more on the Scripture itself. It must
be consulted anyway to validate the theologians. And any theological
argument that cannot be explained from the Scripture is suspect anyway.
This includes arguments about which passages are literal, historical, etc.
Otherwise I would like to see the theology skipped, and simpler direct
answers given to questions like Glenn has raised about how the observational
data fits with the Scripture.
If there is some reason that Glenn should not be asking the questions he
is, let that reason be argued from the Scripture, not from the meta-Scriptures.
Otherwise, why not just try and answer the questions?
--Dave***
(**) I suggested that theology can lead to madness. I don't mean to suggestthat Jim or any of these particular theologians is crazy. Rather that ifwe systemize our knowledge of a subject to such a high degree that itbecomes more important than the underlying reality, we lose our gripon that reality. It is the reliance on theology over observationthat is madness.
(***) I have put Jims suggested books on my reading list. Partly out ofperverseness. Partly because I want to see if Jim as accuratelyrepresented their views when he says they exclude Glenn's lines ofinquiry.