Hermeneutics: the right questions, the right answers
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:39 am
Greetings,
This board is more or less a debate board; the title says as much. Iow, when we post "here" we are usually presenting a case for or against a doctrine or belief system within "Calvinism, Arminianism, or Open Theism" categories.
The thing of it is: what about those of us who don't subscribe to any of these systems of thought? For example, though I don't really believe in "Arminianism," I'm "more Arminian than Calvinist" (which I am not in any sense of meaning, that I know of). Many, if not most Calvinists would, therefore, see me as an "Arminian" by default. However, it doesn't essentially matter to me what guys in the 16th century thought: I'm not locked into any system of thinking (or any systematic theology)! Almost every Calvinist I have met thinks you HAVE to either be an Arminian OR a Calvinist! Once again, I don't subscribe to the worldview of 16th century thinkers. As a general principle of solid hermeneutics I base my views on the First Century and the worldview of the NT authors! (and, of course, of the other Bible writers in their own context as well)! I don't have to ask what 16th century thinkers asked, leave alone answer their questions---in either an Arminian or Calvinistic way. Now, I may arrive at conclusions that are, or may seem to be, compatible with one of these systems to greater or lesser degrees. But this doesn't mean that I "am" a Calvinist or an Arminian, or "in" any other camp or system of theology.
"Unquestioned answers are far more dangerous than unanswered questions," I've heard it said. (Why did I just post this)?
As I read and study the Bible, the laws of hermeneutics demand I read it from its own historical context, paying strict attention to the original authors' meaning and intention. If I ask the Bible something that was foreign to the Bible writers' thought (worldview); what would I be doing? I would be attempting to "force" the Bible authors -- and the Bible -- to answer a question it has no answer to! "Ask the wrong questions and you will get the wrong answers," I've also heard it said....
The question, "Does regeneration happen before -- or after -- faith?" is one that has been asked, perhaps, as early as Augustine. We know for sure it has been asked and hotly debated since the Reformation. But is this a biblical question? Iow, was this something the Bible writers really asked or had answers to? Did they even think about regeneration and saving-faith in terms of "Which order did they happen in?" categories?
Personally, I don't believe they did.
The biblical authors were Eastern by worldview, and, the Eastern mind can accept things that Western thought sees as either paradoxical or contradictory. And, of course, since the death of the last Apostle, the Church became predominantly Gentile (with its Western worldview) and began to ask -- and answer -- questions from a "Gentile framework" that was outside of the biblical (Jewish, first century and earlier) worldview. The post-NT Church wasn't "wrong" to ask questions that were being asked in their era any more than we are in error doing the same thing. I mean, people ask what they ask and wonder about answers.
But when any system of thought is placed "onto the Bible" in a way that "sections it into categories" that are totally foreign to it -- and essentially redefines it! by ignoring its historical context! -- the danger dramatically increases of arriving at conclusions:
FALSE conclusions to questions the Bible may NOT even address !!!
Enter: "proof-texting" and really (really) bad theology....
Thanks,
Rick
This board is more or less a debate board; the title says as much. Iow, when we post "here" we are usually presenting a case for or against a doctrine or belief system within "Calvinism, Arminianism, or Open Theism" categories.
The thing of it is: what about those of us who don't subscribe to any of these systems of thought? For example, though I don't really believe in "Arminianism," I'm "more Arminian than Calvinist" (which I am not in any sense of meaning, that I know of). Many, if not most Calvinists would, therefore, see me as an "Arminian" by default. However, it doesn't essentially matter to me what guys in the 16th century thought: I'm not locked into any system of thinking (or any systematic theology)! Almost every Calvinist I have met thinks you HAVE to either be an Arminian OR a Calvinist! Once again, I don't subscribe to the worldview of 16th century thinkers. As a general principle of solid hermeneutics I base my views on the First Century and the worldview of the NT authors! (and, of course, of the other Bible writers in their own context as well)! I don't have to ask what 16th century thinkers asked, leave alone answer their questions---in either an Arminian or Calvinistic way. Now, I may arrive at conclusions that are, or may seem to be, compatible with one of these systems to greater or lesser degrees. But this doesn't mean that I "am" a Calvinist or an Arminian, or "in" any other camp or system of theology.
"Unquestioned answers are far more dangerous than unanswered questions," I've heard it said. (Why did I just post this)?
As I read and study the Bible, the laws of hermeneutics demand I read it from its own historical context, paying strict attention to the original authors' meaning and intention. If I ask the Bible something that was foreign to the Bible writers' thought (worldview); what would I be doing? I would be attempting to "force" the Bible authors -- and the Bible -- to answer a question it has no answer to! "Ask the wrong questions and you will get the wrong answers," I've also heard it said....
The question, "Does regeneration happen before -- or after -- faith?" is one that has been asked, perhaps, as early as Augustine. We know for sure it has been asked and hotly debated since the Reformation. But is this a biblical question? Iow, was this something the Bible writers really asked or had answers to? Did they even think about regeneration and saving-faith in terms of "Which order did they happen in?" categories?
Personally, I don't believe they did.
The biblical authors were Eastern by worldview, and, the Eastern mind can accept things that Western thought sees as either paradoxical or contradictory. And, of course, since the death of the last Apostle, the Church became predominantly Gentile (with its Western worldview) and began to ask -- and answer -- questions from a "Gentile framework" that was outside of the biblical (Jewish, first century and earlier) worldview. The post-NT Church wasn't "wrong" to ask questions that were being asked in their era any more than we are in error doing the same thing. I mean, people ask what they ask and wonder about answers.
But when any system of thought is placed "onto the Bible" in a way that "sections it into categories" that are totally foreign to it -- and essentially redefines it! by ignoring its historical context! -- the danger dramatically increases of arriving at conclusions:
FALSE conclusions to questions the Bible may NOT even address !!!
Enter: "proof-texting" and really (really) bad theology....
Thanks,
Rick