Through A Glass Darkly
Dr. David Dunbar is President of Biblical Theological Seminary in Hatfield, PA. Dave has been offering thoughts on the school’s theological convictions in his “Missional Journal.” Biblical Seminary continues to press through to “missional theological education.” Some want to talk about missional theology. Biblical is committed to missional theology. Rather than nuance theology in missional terms, Biblical is committed to theology that is rooted and rises from the missio dei. You may follow the links in the footnotes and read the complete statement of theological convictions that guide Biblical Seminary in its theological project. Biblical Seminary now offers a MA in Missional Church Planting. Thanks to Dave for allowing us to post his article here at MissioScapes.
———-
“Through a Glass Darkly”
With these words St. Paul (1 Cor. 13:12) contrasts the limitations of our present spiritual vision and understanding with the fullness of knowledge that will be ours at the return of the Lord. This metaphor may be helpful as we consider the last of Biblical Seminary’s theological convictions.
The Necessity of Cultural Engagement
We are committed to ongoing engagement with culture and the world for the sake of our witness to the gospel, and to continual learning from Christians in other cultural settings.[1]
There are three points I want to make about this statement: 1) culture as the context for mission, 2) culture as a way of seeing, and 3) the need for cross-cultural learning.
1. Culture as context
By “culture” we refer to the traditional ways of thinking, speaking, and acting that characterize a particular group of people. In our highly mobile Western world, we must think of culture not as a single entity but as a complex interplay of contrasting and even competing ways by which different groups construe their world.
This diversity of cultures is one reason the church in North America must now think of itself as a missionary church. We are surrounded by groups of people who do not share our way of viewing the world. To bring the gospel to our world we will need to engage in the missionary task of translation. We must communicate the truth about Jesus in ways that are faithful to Scripture and effective in crossing cultural boundaries.
Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, understands this challenge better than most. “When Paul spoke to Greeks, he confronted their culture’s idol of speculation and philosophy with the ‘foolishness’ of the cross, and then presented Christ’s salvation as true wisdom. When he spoke to Jews, he confronted their culture’s idol of power and accomplishment with the ‘weakness’ of the cross, and then presented the gospel as true power (1 Cor. 1:22-25).”[2] In affirming one gospel, Keller nonetheless argues that different “forms” of the gospel are appropriate to people of differing cultural backgrounds.
So, in the context of his own ministry in New York City, Keller recognizes that people with religious backgrounds understand the concept of sin as an offense against the law of God. These people can therefore be reached with the more traditional evangelical summary of the gospel which presents the cross as divine provision for human sin and guilt.
But Keller notes, “…Manhattan is also filled with postmodern listeners who consider all moral statements to be culturally relative and socially constructed. If you try to convict them of guilt for sexual lust, they will simply say, ‘You have your standards, and I have mine.’ If you respond with a diatribe on the dangers of relativism, your listeners will simply feel scolded and distanced.”[3] For this audience Keller finds it more effective to speak of sin not as guilt but as idolatry.
My point is not to argue the rightness or wrongness of Pastor Keller’s specific approach to preaching, although I agree with much of his article. The point is rather to emphasize the missional challenge we face. Careful interpretation of Scripture must now be combined with careful interpretation of culture(s) if we are to witness faithfully to our generation.
2. Culture as a way of seeing
Paul talks about seeing in the mirror “dimly” or “obscurely.” This is due both to our finiteness and our fallenness, and both play out in the influence of culture upon us and upon those to whom we bring the gospel. Culture allows us to see certain things while it makes other realities opaque.
Here’s another way of saying this: None of us perceive reality (including the Bible) in a purely objective way. We are all imbedded in our culture. We observe from a limited perspective. No one enjoys a God’s-eye view of the world except God himself.
When I was a beginning student in theology, most evangelicals were objectivists. We saw ourselves as people who could simply observe the world and the Bible without being impacted by our cultural surroundings. Perspective (bias) was not a problem, at least not for us! Abstract scientific induction was our model for the study of the Bible and the articulation of theology: begin with the pure data and by careful, logical process craft your sermon or build your theology.
But now postmodernism has powerfully critiqued that type of naïve modernism. There is a growing convergence among evangelical scholars that objectivism is not workable. No less a conservative than D.A. Carson now says that “… human beings may know objective truth in the sense that they may know what actually conforms to reality, but they cannot know it objectively, that is, they cannot escape their finitude and (this side of the consummation) their fallenness….”[4] Similarly, John Franke writes, “We simply cannot escape from our particular setting and gain access to an objective, transcultural vantage point.”[5] The result, says Carson, is that we are all perspectivalists.
This has both positive and negative consequences. On the one hand, culture may function in a positive way to help us see particular dimensions of our humanity or of the world that may otherwise escape us. Our conviction statement reads: “It is also true that God can work in a culture to surface issues of justice, equity, or mercy that the church has neglected.” Clearly the civil rights movement of the second half of the 20th century surfaced a glaring inconsistency in the theology and practice of many white Christians in North America.
On the other hand, culture can impact the church negatively as well. In this case it blinds us to truths that may be obvious to those of a different cultural background. For example, the narcissistic individualism[6] of the West has left American Christians with an anemic understanding of the church. As a result many of us would summarize the gospel with no reference to the centrality of the church in God’s purposes, and many of us live as if salvation were merely a private affair between Jesus and me.
3. Cross-cultural learning
So, any particular culture both illuminates and obscures aspects of reality. To quote Carson again, “…every expression of human culture simultaneously discloses that we were made in God’s image and shows itself to be mis-shaped and corroded by human rebellion against God.”[7]
How then are we to live out Christian faith without being co-opted unknowingly by the most dangerous elements of our surroundings? The primary answer is that we must be willing to bring our most fundamental assumptions back to Scripture in the recognition that a fresh hearing of the Word may yet disclose points of correction or expansion in our living of the gospel.
However, our convictions statement speaks of the need for “continual learning from Christians in other cultural settings.” The way we understand and live out the gospel needs to be compared with the ways brothers and sisters in other places hear the same message. In the process we will find elements of similarity and difference; the commonalities will confirm our faith and the plurality of views will humble and perhaps instruct us.
The growing weakness of the church in the West and the explosion of the church in the two-thirds world should make us teachable. Wheaton College professor Kevin Vanhoozer says, “Those who cannot see their own cultural conditioning are doomed to repeat it. It is just here that Western sytematic theologians have much to learn…. It is ultimately for the sake of better biblical interpretation that Western theologians need to attend to how the Bible is being read and practiced in the non-Western world.”[8]
************************
In summary, none of us can escape culture. It is the context in which we understand, embody, and communicate the gospel. The church’s missional challenge in every particular cultural setting is to incarnate the message faithfully. At Biblical Seminary we believe the best hope for carrying out that mission is a fresh listening for the voice of the Spirit as we read Scripture together with the global church.
[1]The full text of our Convictions is found here: http://www.biblical.edu/images/discover/Convictions0808.pdf
[2] Tim Keller, “The Gospel in All Its Forms,” at http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2008/spring/9.74.html?start=1
[3] http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2008/spring/9.74.html?start=5
[4] D.A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited (Eerdmans, 2008), p. 101.
[5] John Franke, The Character of Theology (Baker, 2005), p. 90.
[6] See my earlier Missional Journal on Narcissism: http://www.biblical.edu/images/belong/PDFs/Vol1No11.pdf
[7] Idem, p. 49
[8] Kevin Vanhoozer, “One Rule to Rule Them All?” in Globalizing Theology edited by Craig Ott and Harold Netland (Baker, 2006), pp. 116-17.
The comment on perspectivalism is interesting. If we claim that our perspective on everything is fully right because of how we interpret Scripture, we are actually submitting everything, even God, to our own interpretation or understanding. This is the error of fundamentalism in that it asserts its interpretation as inerrant and leaves no room for another perspective. At the same time, God is infallible and His Word true objectively. So, what are we to do? We are fallible, but God and His Word are not. Like Dunbar said, we are to continually reapproach Scripture from perspectives different from our own in the community of believers guided by the Holy Spirit. We must humble ourselves and not claim as the liberals do that truth is unknowable, but rather, reassert that Jesus is Lord and His ways are higher than our ways, lest we remake God in our own image.
The application of this gets tricky because you can have people asserting all kinds of “perspectives” and their’s might be as wrong as yours. But, a dose of humility and awareness of our own fallenness is needed as we approach the Text and the Culture. As Hirsch says, returning to the Biblical view of Jesus seems to be a great starting point.
@Alan Cross
The sticky issue is how may we know God’s word objectively. We may assert this to be true but our fallen-ness and finitude make us dependent on the Spirit as well as the Spirit’s work in the community of believers. Epistemic humility seems the best way forward. Even a reference to a “return to the Biblical view of Jesus” is an embedded reference. Whose “Biblical” view? The matter keeps us tethered to the wider Church rather than simply listening to ourselves in a barrel as Emily Hunter McGowin recently described conversations solely located in one Christian tradition, or denomination.
@Todd Littleton
Agreed. In fact, all we know is subjective, meaning subjective to our own experiences. We cannot know anything as objective, including science (according to Polanyi, himself a chemist). It requires a deep relationship with the Spirit to know the Truth as He is the one who teaches us and leads us to Truth (not as proposition, but Truth as relationship)
That’s not new age or postmodernism. It is the reality of life in a post-garden, post fall environment.
Todd,
You basically said what I was trying to say, but I am trying to find ways to embrace humility without simultaneously stepping into a cloud of unknowing. The fact that God gave us Scripture and the testimony of the man – Jesus, points to the fact that He can be known. Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection were verifiable facts that are not given to subjectivity. I know you and David well enough to know that you agree here and I also fully understand what you are getting at. I am just trying to figure out what keeps this from devolving into every perspective being valid? When that happens, someone is still going to assert their perspective over another (our fallen nature at work), but it will be through coercion, persuasion, manipulation, and force rather than through appeals to objective truth.
Like you, I DO believe that our unity is in the Spirit and community as we stay tethered to the Word of God. The Enlightenment Project was an attempt to embed authority in Reason and Absolutes that could be known through learning, science, tools, and human faculty. That has all broken down and Postmodernism says that that is all impossible. Yet, appeals to the Spirit are subjective as well. What to do?
This is where fellowship and prayer grounded in Scripture come in. We need to talk about things and go to Scripture together with humility while also believing that it is trustworthy and true. The early church in Acts 13 and 15 faced the same dilemma when they sent Paul and Barnabas and when they had the Jerusalem Council. They seemed to fare alright.
Alan,
“The application of this gets tricky because you can have people asserting all kinds of ‘perspectives’ and their’s might be as wrong as yours.”
This is why I think agreeing on a hermeneutic would provide further objectivity than merely agreeing on the nature of Scripture as being fully true. The reason why SB’s arrive at different interpretations is because underneath the surface we are operating with different hermeneutics. And I don’t think merely appealing to the grammatico-historical hermeneutic will solve the problem. I think we need something even better.
If a biblical hermeneutic was hammered out and agreed upon, then we the interpreters would need to interpret Scripture in harmony with that hermeneutic.
If we did not, then our fellow brothers and sisters could, in love, slap us on the hand and say “Now, that’s not being consistent…”
At that point we would either have to: A. say that the agreed upon hermeneutic is flawed and thus advocate going back to the drawing board [so to speak] or B. humbly accept that we got off the wrong track.
It seems that if we do not go this direction, then we can end up seeking unity with things looking like this:
1. The pastor said it/I believe it/that settles it
2. The church said it/I believe it/that settles it
3. The confession said it/I believe it/that settles it
4. My experience with Jesus said it/I believe it/that settles it
The advantage of having an objective hermeneutic, I think, is that it allows people to see “how” we have arrived at this or that interpretation of Scripture. In this way, I don’t think doing violence to the conscience of men and women by pressuring them to adopt interpretations “that they don’t see in the Bible” is as likely.
What I am trying to bring together as friends is the authority of Scripture and Liberty of conscience and the only way I see bringing them together is to agree upon a hermeneutic.
I believe it is possible that many would buck at this idea because it could threaten statements in confessions [that aren't consistent interpretations with the hermeneutic] and job security.
However, I think Jesus points us in the right direction [John 5:39; Luke 24:27].
Grace to you,
Benji
@Benji Ramsaur
Benji,
I appreciate your thoughts. However, there is no way to come up with an objective hermeneutic. Even if there was such a thing, no one would ever be able to apply it in such a way that everyone would come to the same conclusion. It’s just not possible. Why, because everyone sees things through their own lens and their own experience.
The Nicene Creed was a result of the community of faith coming together and agree on the important things. The community of faith holds the key to taking care of the heretics. The community of faith holds the key to the development of theology, prompted by the Spirit. The Jerusalem counsel was two communities of faith coming together and agreeing to disagree.
We will see things often, in general agreement. However, since none of us have the exact same experiences, none of us will see things exactly the same. Macro agreement, micro disagreement
David,
I don’t think an objective hermeneutic would bring about perfect agreement on everything. However, I do think there can be such a thing as laying out a hermeneutic that everyone can see and understand and hold the interpreter accountable for in being consistent with that hermeneutic.
While I do agree that the community of faith is extremely important, if there was no objective hermeneutic, then it seems like thing would come out looking like this:
“There is truth for this community of faith and there is a different truth for that community of faith and there is still another truth for that community of faith as well and on and on it goes…”
You said “…everyone sees things through their own lens and their own experience.”
That’s why the lens needs to be put out on the table for everyone to see instead of hiding in the dark. An objective hermeneutic would hold us accountable to use a justifiable lens instead of one that is not justifiable in my opinion.
Doesn’t it make more sense to go underneath the surface and deal with the root cause of doctrinal disunity instead of arguing about 15,000 different particular interpretations with neither side being aware of the underlying hermeneutics being used? In fact, it can be the case that each side is not self-conscious of their own hermeneutic.
If people shrink back from wanting to show their underlying hermeneutic, then I don’t believe I can help but think what is really going on is that they are trying to protect their own arbitrariness.
Benji,
you said, “That’s why the lens needs to be put out on the table for everyone to see instead of hiding in the dark. An objective hermeneutic would hold us accountable to use a justifiable lens instead of one that is not justifiable in my opinion.”
Here’s the problem…no one would use it! If we got a hermeneutic led me to a belief in the rapture, I would not use it. I’m amillennial.
The only way you get an objective hermeneutic is if God gave it and we would still distort it. It will not happen this side of Heaven. You cannot come up with a perfectly objective hermeneutic that everyone will agree with because that hermeneutic will always take everyone some place they don’t agree with and thus they won’t use it.
David,
I appreciate this. I understand what you are saying. However, what kind of valid interpreters of Scripture are we if we *only* give our interpretations of Scripture while always keeping hid to others [and maybe to ourselves?] the underlying hermeneutic that leads us to our interpretations?
Or are we to just pick and choose whatever hermeneutic we like each week like a nice lady picks out her shoes so that if we want to come out with this interpretation in Revelation then that red hermeneutic will do, but if we want to come out with this interpretation in Romans, then we will have to go with the green hermeneutic?
By the way, I’m not premillennial either:)
@Benji Ramsaur
There is a little book titled, What Do They Hear?. The writer has taught in a variety of cultural contexts. He notes the distinctive reads of Scripture in the US, Africa, and Russia. In each of these instances the Scripture is read and the understood in the varied cultural contexts. The only hermeneutic is to read, in one case, the Parable of the Lost Son/Prodigal Son. The context shaped the interpretive grid of the hearer. None of the interpretations violated the meaning of the parable. However, the reasons one son or the other resonated in the story ran precisely along the lines of cultural distinctives.
Now we in the US may wish to argue for a universal hermeneutic for our cultural context, though I think it impossible due to a lack of unified cultural unity. But, to argue someone from tribal sub-Saharan African contexzt to my cultural distinctions is to abruptly circumvent the work of the Spirit. The Spirit is more aware of that context than I. So to prescribe a hermeneutic that is fraught with my assumptions, even if agreed upon, becomes a colonializing of other cultures holding them more captive to my hermeneutic than to the Scriptures.
There is little doubt we could be more open and honest about our hermeneutic. But, I would conjecture the varied hermeneutics exposes us to more light than confusion when it comes to the Text. When someone reads, for instance, through a “liberation” hermeneutic we cannot summarily dismiss them because we preferred a WASPY hermeneutic. Or, consider someone who prefers a hermeneutic of suspicion over a hermeneutic of certitude. Together these varied approaches afford us a view we could not otherwise see. Call it the difference between monochrome and colorchrome. When the community gathers under the leadership of the Spirit we then get to see in rich beauty the manifold witness of the grace of God evidenced through the Church Paul describes in Ephesians.
@Benji Ramsaur
Benji, you said:
You are assuming that each person knows what kind of hermeneutic they are using. You are also systamizing things. Is not better to let the Spirit teach? Is it not better to let knowledge that comes through relationship with Jesus be the defining hermeneutic?
I say this because my own hermeneutic teaches me one thing, but a moment of revelation from Jesus may show a more personal application and understanding for me…those moments when God peels back heaven a bit and reveals something you’ve never seen before because you are looking at something in a slightly different way or through the eyes of someone else…happens to me all the time.
Again, objective truth is only found in Jesus and a relationship with him.
I’m more inclined to let Jesus and the Spirit teach me than to define and stick with one specific type of hermeneutic.
@Benji Ramsaur
Oh, and what Todd said in that last paragraph
@Benji Ramsaur
Oh, and I appreciate this as well…great conversation!
Paul,
If I understand you correctly, you are basically saying that we are trapped and shaped by our own cultural context as to how we read the scriptures. Other cultures are also trapped and shaped by their cultural context as to how they read the Scriptures as well. Therefore, It would be wrong to “impose” our trapped/shaped hermeneutic upon them and vice versa.
I think you are painting the picture in too stark of terms. If what you are saying is true, then how can any of us in any culture be certain of any interpretation of any Scripture since it is our finite culture that is determining how we interpret the Scriptures in the first place? In fact, how can we be certain that we are not certain since our finite culture [which does not know everything and hence cannot justify anything since there might be some fact or truth out there the finite culture does not know aboot that contradicts what the finite culture thinks it knows] determines how we know what we supposedly know?
I once saw some exotic colorful fish that exist in the depths of the ocean on the internet. I never would have had knowledge of those fish if some camera had not entered the ocean depths to take a picture so that I could see it on the land.
In the same way, I never would have had the knowledge of heaven unless someone from heaven entered into my world and revealed it to me [John 3:31-34].
That knowledge comes from outside *any* culture and invades *every* culture so that it is not bound by cultural captivity.
Part of that knowledge includes an approach to Scripture [John 5:39].
David,
You said “Is not better to let the Spirit teach? Is it not better to let knowledge that comes through relationship with Jesus be the defining hermeneutic?”
If you are basing this on John 14:26 16:13-15, then I think you err because Christ is referring to His “Revelatory word” and not mere illumination as to what the Scriptures mean.
The Holy Spirit illumines the meaning of Scripture to us. However, that does not necessarily discount that there is an objective hermeneutic that can help us understand Scripture with the Help of the Spirit.
I do not think this is either/or. I think it is both/and.
@Benji Ramsaur
Paul may not be so delighted, but thank you for demonstrating human fallibility. This is Todd. I take it as a compliment. Paul may not.
Certainty eliminates the need for faith and trust. The Scriptures remind us that God dwells in ineffable light. That mere description points to the limited ability of our human understanding to apprehend God. Jesus become flesh explicates (literally exegetes) God to us. Even at that the Sacred Text clearly reveals human inability to apprehend even Jesus. The gift of the Spirit guiding us in our fallen-ness and finitude keep us dependent and trusting. The design of the Christian community under the illuminating work of the Spirit keeps us from descending into what you describe. In the nearly 2000 years of Church history the Spirit has protected the Church, even in the midst of seasons of error which were either gently or firmly confronted.
The notion that you or I possess the capacity to escape our situated-ness in culture is a project of the Enlightenment attempt to point to human progress which has been proven woefully inept at doing so. In fact, Jesus did not suggest we escape our cultural contexts. Rather he prayed we be kept safe in the world.
Benji,
In John 14:6, Jesus said “I am the way the TRUTH and the life”. Jesus is the highest expression of Truth. In fact, he is not an expression of Truth but the embodiment of it. The truth (the scriptures) lead us to the Truth, the person. Therefore, if Jesus is the Truth and the highest expression of the revelation of God (Heb 1), the way to know Truth is through relationship and only through relationship. If the Spirit is to lead us into all truth, he will lead into truth through relationship.
That is the big difference. I see Truth in relationship with Jesus. Others see Truth in the Scriptures. I believe the scriptures, study the scriptures, preach the scriptures but see them as a way to a deeper relationship with The Truth, namely Jesus.
As a result, we need not an objective hermeneutic but a relational hermeneutic.
Hi Benji, this is Paul.
If you are from the “Todd school” of hermeneutics then calling him Paul may well be a compliment (as he has apparently taken it). However, if you are from the “Paul school” of hermeneutics it may be taken as a derrogatory put-down. I was wondering if you could share with us an objective hermeneutic so that Todd and I can settle this, because as of now we’re not talking.
Now, that’s just a joke, so please, no reminders about all being made in God’s image and so forth.
But seriously, I’m taking an online class in American history this fall. There’s a lady enrolled in the class who is from England. Do you suppose that when we get to the history of the American Revolution she’ll interpret those events the same as the rest of the class? Can you help me with what an objective hermeneutic is so that when we have our Blackboard discussion on that time period I can be sure to help her see it the same as the rest of the class – that we were right and they were wrong? We were. Right.
@Paul
That is too frickin’ funny man!
Todd & Paul,
“Certainty eliminates the need for faith and trust.” So, you are *certain* that “Certainty eliminates the need for faith and trust”. C’mon Todd…:)
David,
That text referring to the Spirit leading into all truth is not talking about you or me. It is referring to the truth as revealed to the Apostles which is now written down for us. Bob, the new believer today and the object of death tomorrow, was NOT led into all truth. The Apostles were led into all truth.
John 16 makes clear that revelation flows from God through Christ through the Spirit to the Apostles. That’s special revelation. We don’t receive special revelation.
I’m having a hard time understanding how having an objective hermeneutic absolutely eliminates a relationship with Jesus or something.
Yes, Jesus is the embodiment of truth. In fact, I agree with Geerhardus Vos that the truth in Jesus [John ch. 1] is antitypical truth.
For example, Christ is the *true* bread–a higher quality of bread than the manna revealed in the O.T.
God spoke in many ways in the past, but His highest quality of speech is in Jesus. Abiding in Jesus and His *objective* words abiding in us is rich [John 15].
If you ever had to deal with a real [Jesus is not the Son of God] heretic in the church, then I think your hands would be tied. If he responded that he was “led into truth through my relationship with Jesus”, then what are you going to say?
@Benji Ramsaur
Benji,
I made a confident assertion you interpreted as certainty. Again you expose your hermeneutics wherein you determine the sense of my words. See how problematic your quest for an objective hermeneutic would be? The late Leslie Newbigin wrote a little book titled, Proper Confidence, wherein he makes Polanyi accessible. The argument, which I like, takes into account human finitude when it comes to epistemology and contends confidence to be our assertive word as opposed to certainty. This is my language of choice. I believe it best comports with faith and belief.
If you are comfortable with certainty let that be your aim. I am convinced you would have both missed the major points of this article and a difficult time arguing your claim of certainty in the public square. A matter you may not feel necessary.
Again the point of the article is cultural engagement and if D.A. Carson quips that we are all perspectivists then even the most conservative among us acknowledge human finitude when it comes to our knowing objectively. And, since Jesus’ call is a call to faith and belief our talk of certainty then becomes a matter of just that faith and belief. So if you want to make certainty your assertive language then do so in the confines of faith language. I would not under that rubric enter into a quest for an objective hermeneutic. I think it not possible nor necessary to declare the Good News.
I think that having humility about our position enables us to believe with certainty and declare truth confidently, while also being teachable and open to the fact that we do not fully understand everything. I do think that the Bible is fully truthful. No one here is countering that. What is being addressed is our ability to fully take a position with certainty because we are seeing through a glass darkly when it comes to culture and mission. But, I do not believe that it is necessary to go there when you recognize that God is God and we are not and you humble yourself enough to learn from others.
Paul certainly corrected the different churches according to revelation when they were in error. We should not make everything a social and cultural construct. That puts us into the same error with postmodernism that we found ourselves in in modernism – captive to a certain philosophical perspective. What if both are wrong?
Christ is Truth and He has made Himself known to us. All here believe that. How do we protect that? Reason is not the answer. Neither is doubt. God has revealed Himself through Christ and it is not my job to convince everyone of that – we need the Spirit’s power. 1 Cor. 2:1-5 is helpful here. How is truth known? Through the Holy Spirit teaching the truth of Scripture to the church.
You know, it is interesting that when I go to India, they do not have all of these divisions. They are moving away from the false categories of the Western church and are slowly gathering around Jesus is Lord. That is what is happening in China too and they are saying it all with certainty. Perhaps this whole discussion is the fruit of a Western philosophical construct and is not even applicable to the global church. At least that is what I’ve seen. Again, I think that humility and sacrificial love are the spiritual and ethical postures that we should take here as we radically cling to Christ.
Ok Benji, let me give one more whack at seriousness. I think there are some base-line things we can mostly agree on – unless you’re a thoroughgoing historic or form critic. I think we can agree that Washington crossed the Delaware in a boat. I think we can agree that the French naval fleet defeated the British in the Battle of the Chesapeake. I think we can agree that Jesus
turned water into winehealed ten lepers. And I think we can agree that Jesus said “the truth will make you free.” What we may or may not agree on are the meanings of those events/sayings. Was the American Revolution a tyrannical rebellion by rogue colonialists or was it the struggle for freedom for a class of people who moved to the New World in hopes of a better life? Was it wine or grape juice? Was Jesus just proving that he was God who had powers over the physical world or was he announcing the arrival of God’s new day? Is the truth Jesus was referring to Truth (i.e. himself) or propositional statements that line up with things as they really are?Again I ask, what is this objective hermeneutic you speak of and how will it resolve these and many other differences we have? In light of the main post, how will it help convince a lost and skeptical world about the claims of the gospel?
iMonk tweeted a link to this post a while ago. It comes from an Eastern Orthodox perspective and seems kind of pertinent to our discussion here:
http://everydayliturgy.com/blogs/thomas/the-gloves-come-off-against-western-theology
Todd,
If you don’t want me to speak about certainty but cultural engagement, then that is fine. It’s not my blog. However, if I may engage a bit of what you have said:
“I am convinced you would have…a difficult time arguing your claim of certainty in the public square. A matter you may not feel necessary.”
While I am not a formally trained presuppositionalist, I think folks like the late Greg Behnsen are more than sufficient to handle the public square. I think Bahnsen showed that in his debate with Stein for example.
“…contends confidence to be our assertive word as opposed to certainty. This is my language of choice.”
So, if I may use your language, then you are confident that Jesus died on the cross, but not certain.
“…even the most conservative among us acknowledge human finitude when it comes to our knowing objectively.”
Of course we are finite. However, when the finite trusts the infinite Yahweh, then the finite can be certain since there is no fact or truth that will contradict what Yahweh asserts since He has infinite understanding.
@Benji Ramsaur :
Benji,
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, as you are backing yourself into a corner you may not recover from.
You said…
I guess Jesus’ words in John 14:15-21 don’t apply to me or you either. So the Holy Spirit will not be with us. He will not be our counselor. He will not be our helper. That is only for the Disciples. Oh great…We’re all screwed. However, we all have taught that the Spirit would be our counselor and our guide and our teacher from this passage, but according to you, that’s not the Spirit’s role. That was only meant for the Apostles/Disciples.
Oh wait…you know, I never talked about special revelation did I? I was talking about illumination. Again, I guess the Spirit doesn’t do that either.
Benji…tell me…what does the Spirit do? What is He allowed to do?
And what do I do when I need to determine if I should take that job in California or New York? Do I pray or do I go to the scripture? I’m asking because I’ve not found in Scripture where that answer is…can you help me find it?
Or what do I do when I’m seeking how to communicate the scripture for the weekend sermon? Do I only use the commentary, or do I ask for illumination? And from whom do I ask for illumination? And who will illumine me?
Then you say…
I never said what you say I said. I said that Truth is known best through relationship with the Truth. I never said an objective hermeneutic absolutely eliminates a relationship with Jesus.
Then you say…
Tell me…was there ever a time when the Disciples didn’t understand what Jesus said? In fact, the parables are an expression of relational hermeneutic. How often did Jesus convey to those listening what he meant when he used parables? We can’t even understand the parable of the sower and the seeds! Everybody has their own opinion of that, don’t they? The answers are, for the most part, grouped, but everybody’s version is just a tad different. The disciples didn’t get it until he told them. Do you think the people who didn’t get in on the special meaning understood it? Oh wait…they weren’t the apostles so they don’t need to understand it, right? I guess those Pharisees that Jesus went after through parables just got angry..they really didn’t get Jesus’ meaning because they weren’t apostles. They didn’t know Jesus was talking about them…maybe they just a little too emotional because they drank all of Jesus’ homemade wine.
Finally you said…
You need to take a logic class. This is completely illogical. First off, he has already been identified as being outside the community of faith because he is does not believe Jesus was the Son of God. Second, if he doesn’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God, he has come to that decision outside the community of Faith or been removed from the community of Faith after developing that argument, so by very definition, he is a heretic and is to be treated like one – with love and patience and grace. Third, he would not say he was led into that by Jesus because he doesn’t believe Jesus is the Son of God, and thus lacks the authority to make that suggestion. It would be like me telling you that my Martian friend is coming by to visit you next week.
Finally, how do you know I haven’t dealt with someone like that? How do you know that I haven’t dealt with someone who said to me that Jesus was the Son of God, He died for our sins, and he is the only way to God, but was not God? How do you know that I have not dealt with someone who didn’t believe in the Trinity?
Come on Benji…You’re getting close to a corner…step back from it. You’re reading into this way more than you need to. I’m giving you a hard time, I know, but I’m really laughing at all this. And I’m not laughing at you, I’m laughing because there have been times when I knew I knew something and got spanked by someone who was much wiser than I (and don’t think I’m saying I’m much wiser than you…in fact, I’m probably less wise and I like it that way).
Look, all I am stating is that real Truth is found in relationship, not propositions. If it was, Jesus would have spoken more in propositions and lectures than in stories, and 80% of the Bible wouldn’t be narrative, it would be 100% lecture with powerpoint. It is only found through a relationship in Jesus Christ. It is found through reading the scriptures, meditating on the Godhead, fighting with the Godhead, sometimes even betraying what we know of the Godhead so that the Godhead can teach us anew. Truth is often found in the dark corners of our dark night of the soul. Part of the Spirit’s role is to teach us in that and lead us to the Truth as found in a relationship with God. That doesn’t discount the scriptures one bit, because they point us to the Godhead.
In addition, I’m saying that there is no such thing as an objective hermeneutic. It doesn’t exist this side of heaven, and won’t. It will only be completely revealed in the new heavens/new earth, or the complete and total re-creation.
Paul,
I never claimed to have an objective hermeneutic that will resolve disagreement concerning the American Revolution so I’m not sure why you are bringing this up in the first place.
I think to compare the American Revolution with Scripture is close to, if not actually, an apples and oranges comparison.
For one thing, any time we read historians we are reading history through “their lens”. If their lens is distorted, then out comes a distorted story.
And even if we read primary sources, there is always the possibility that there is some truth or fact [or undiscovered primary source] that we are not aware of that could alter our impression of that history.
But aside from those considerations, I do not have a doctorate in history. Not an expert. Don’t claim to be.
Now, when it comes to having an objective hermeneutic concerning Scripture, I do have some idea [i.e. highly Christological] of what that might look like. However, notice in my first comment that I talked about a hermeneutic being “hammered out”.
I’m not claiming I have the hammered out hermeneutic. I am proposing that it would be good for God’s people to gather together for iron sharpening iron to take place in relation to seeing what this hermeneutic should look like.
On an Academic level, I think we have the evangelical scholars right now that could come together [like the Chicago guys did] and hammer this thing out.
Guys like Carson, Schreiner, and Piper.
I’m proposing an idea. I’m not saying I have a completely sophisticated biblical hermeneutic that is refined like a Rolls-Royce engine.
@Benji Ramsaur
to Paul’s response, you said…
Guess what…we may actually agree. I read the scriptures through my highly relational christological lens! Unfortunately, since I see through that lens dimly far too often, I may miss something, I may misunderstand something, etc. In other words, I cannot see through an objective hermeneutic…only the dim glass lens the Godhead has given me at this time…
But my relationship with Jesus and the rest of the Godhead keeps me on the right track…
David,
Wow brother. I think it might take some timne to digest all that content:) I might respond tonight or maybe tomorrow.
God Bless you,
Benji
David,
Maybe I’ll comment some on this little sentence here. Please note I am not trying to write a book:)
“Benji…tell me…what does the Spirit do? What is He allowed to do?”
The Holy Spirit, frequently said to come “upon” people in the O.T., now indwells the New Covenant people of God.
The dream of Moses is now a reality–ALL of God’s people are influenced by the Spirit. The Spirit leads and strengthens God’s people. The Spirit bears fruit through God’s people since they are now married to Christ. This was something the law could never do–bear fruit.
We are to walk in the Spirit. We are not to grieve the Spirit. The Spirit is “another” helper.
But the Spirit does NOT take from Christ and give to us special revelation. Christ took from the Father, the Spirit took from Christ, and the Spirit revealed the word of God to the apostles. We no longer have the Apostles. But we do have the fixed apostolic word.
The Apostolic or New Testament word is the final word. Therefore, claims to having a higher word from Christ are false. Not accusing you BTW.
God Bless,
Benji
David.
Ok, I’m trying to work my way through some of this:)
“I never said what you say I said. I said that Truth is known best through relationship with the Truth. I never said an objective hermeneutic absolutely eliminates a relationship with Jesus.”
Thanks for the correction. I don’t want to misrepresent you.
“First off, he has already been identified as being outside the community of faith because he is does not believe Jesus was the Son of God.”
Not necessarily. He might have first claimed that Jesus was the Son of God [and was immersed], but then later on [after becoming a church member] supposedly changed his mind.
“Third, he would not say he was led into that by Jesus because he doesn’t believe Jesus is the Son of God, and thus lacks the authority to make that suggestion.”
But he might have his “own Jesus”, dressed up in Christian garb. He could possibly say that Jesus was the Messiah and did miracles and died on the cross, but was not the Son of God because he has been having an intimate relationship with Jesus in which he claims the truth of Jesus has flowed into his heart from the person of Jesus.
He might say Jesus has been misunderstood and he has come to proclaim the truth to you now because he loves you dearly.
Sure this stuff is crazy, but when the subjectivity of a relationship with Jesus for interpreting what is true cancels out an objective standard [like an objective hermeneutic], then this is the kind of craziness that one can have a hard time defending against.
How are you going to defend the truth against his subjectivity when he claims the same subjectivity you claim?
Listen, I know that sometimes we bloggers can misunderstand each other, but just know that I am open to seeing where I might have misunderstood you. Feel free to correct me.
God Bless,
Benji
David,
“Look, all I am stating is that real Truth is found in relationship, not propositions.”
I think your sentence is itself a proposition. However, Todd might come in here…
David,
“If it was, Jesus would have spoken more in propositions and lectures than in stories, and 80% of the Bible wouldn’t be narrative, it would be 100% lecture with powerpoint.”
I believe I have a different view on this. While I affirm that the entire Bible is true, I do believe that the New Testament is a qualitatively “higher” revelation [Heb. 1:1-2].
I also believe that the word of Christ was passed on to the Apostles through the Spirit [Jn. 16:13-15].
Therefore, the word of Peter is the word of Christ. The word of Paul is the word of Christ. There are plenty of propositions with just those 2 names.
Ahhhh….now I think we have something. Benji. What you have described (a “hammered out” hermeneutic) is precisely what Todd and David have been talking about. Listen, if you could get Carson and all of the other evangelical brainiacs together and formulate an agreed-upon hermeneutic (like Chicago), what you would have would not be an “objective” hermeneutic. What you would have would be the church speaking. Now granted, it would be one sector of the church, a decidedly WASPy, male section of the church, but let’s not pretend that it would be “objective.” It would be, as Carson himself has stated, “perspectival.” You/we simply cannot escape it.
I’m not sure, but it sounds like you are searching for a hermeneutic that will resolve all of our theological debates. Maybe I’m reading you wrong. But if that’s the case then two things strike me: 1) that is either triumphalistic or naive (and I’m really not attacking you here…I’m not trying to cause offense). If 2000 years of church history have not resolved interpretive issues between Christians of good faith I’m pretty sure we’re not going to find the silver bullet in this generation. Unless you’re a Postmillennialist. Then it’s probably triumphalistic, but it’s at least a triumphalism I can comprehend. 2) That you will lose it as soon as you find it. It’s quite possible that you, a seminary student, might even abandon your own hermeneutic somewhere down the road for a variety of reasons, like, say, having spent an extended amount of time in a foreign culture.
David,
“In addition, I’m saying that there is no such thing as an objective hermeneutic. It doesn’t exist this side of heaven, and won’t.”
If there is not such thing as an objective hermeneutic, then how can people talk about the “grammatico-historical hermeneutic” if there is no objective understanding of what it basically means?
If the objective grammatico-historical hermeneutic exists, then why couldn’t the type of hermeneutic I am referring to exist [or come into existence] as well?
@Benji
OK…two quick things regarding your response(s) to David.
1) “How are you going to defend the truth against his subjectivity when he claims the same subjectivity you claim?” If by “defend the truth” you mean argue him into submission or convince him that he is wrong then I would suggest that David will have about as much luck as you would, which I would estimate to be somewhere close to a zero probability. He already doesn’t buy your presuppositions so he’s certainly not going to buy your argument, much less your conclusion. However, if by “defend the truth” you mean something like “give an answer for the hope that is within you” or to bear witness to Christ then I think a simple, concise, straightforward and clear testimony would suffice. What did the blind man say? “Once I was blind, but now I see?” The guy can say it’s all a bunch of hogwash, but he’s going to say worse than that about your “proof” or “evidence” or “argument.”
2) If we remove Revelation from the discussion (not from the Bible, just the discussion), then the vast majority of the New Testament is still narrative. Luke/Acts by themselves approach the entire volume of the epistles. And then there are guys like Kevin Vanhoozer who would argue that much of what we find in the epistles is more narrative than we would generally concede.
Paul,
You seem to think that a “perspective” is necessarily subjective. I disagree. I would encourage you to read some presuppositional Van Til/Bahnsen literature to understand where I am coming from if you are interested.
I am not saying that an objective hermeneutic would solve all theological debates [see comment #7].
However, if an agreed upon objective hermeneutic directed folks along the same *theological trajectory*, then I think that could bring much more doctrinal unity.
“If 2000 years of church history have not resolved interpretive issues between Christians of good faith I’m pretty sure we’re not going to find the silver bullet in this generation.”
I think that you underestimate the power of past confessions and creeds and political power in making this statement. No, I don’t think there will be a silver bullet, but I do think there can be a better “trajectory”.
In fact, I do think in the broad picture of things, there already has been something of a movement towards unity with the breaking away of some/many from the polar opposites of Covenant Theology and Dispensational theology so that folks have moved closer to one another.
A phrase from a former professor sums up what I am getting at in relation to an objective hermeneutic:
“Tell me where you stand and I’ll tell you where you’ll land”
God Bless,
Benji
This whole discussion kind of proves the point, doesn’t it? Everyone is arguing this from their own perspective.
Benji is making some great points, guys. What keeps us from falling off into relativism? Some would say that we are already there because truth is certain relative to the person asserting it. That seems to be the postmodern claim. The only objective truth that we seem to have is the ability to step back and see that there might be many different interpretations or views on an issue. Mohler tried to solve this with his theological triage perspective.
But, our own presuppositions guide us, it seems, and keep is from seeing another view. This is why we must humble ourselves. I still assert that it is possible to humble yourself before others while still having certainty regarding your beliefs. Of course this is where what David and Todd are saying kicks in because how do we decide whose certainty wins out?
Could this be where the person of Jesus is most important for this discussion? Don’t say that He is unknowable.He is not fully knowable, but He is knowable enough that we are expected to follow Him and look like Him. Of course, this is the work of the Spirit as we walk in the Spirit and demonstrate the character of Christ as He lives through us. Could everything that looks like Him and loves sacrificially be true, and everything that does not look like Him or love sacrificially be false? 1 John 3 and 4 seem to be saying this.
Paul,
“…I think a simple, concise, straightforward and clear testimony would suffice. What did the blind man say? “Once I was blind, but now I see?”
But he might have his own testimony. So, it’s testimony vs. testimony in relation to protecting the local church from heresy.
@Benji Ramsaur
Benji,
Good conversation. Yet, you still infuse your meaning to my words which is an illustration of the problem posed by searching for an objective hermeneutic. I did not say you cannot comment on this blog about certainty. I simply directed you to the content of the post. I did not say the crucifixion was something I had confidence in but not certain of.
What I did say was that the crucifixion of Jesus is attested to not only in Scripture but outside sources. As such, it holds more than a question of whether one takes it on faith the event occurred. Since it has been noted in extra-biblical material, few can really argue its historical reality, unless it were those who choose to deny the Holocaust despite the historical record.
What I did say was the Resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith and trust. Some believe it happened. Others do not. Archaeologists have not agreed on the Tomb of Jesus exact location. Some want to assert Jesus Resurrection was not bodily. I believe it is. Would stake my life on its reality. As such, it is still a matter of faith. In fact, we are told to believe this Good News – the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus. Again, the Apostle Paul notes that Jesus divinity is made alive in the Resurrection. (Romans 1)
What I did not say was that I meekly declare what I believe. I will sound as certain as the next who believes in what they hold.
What I did say was that it is impossible for humans to fully apprehend God – even with the illuminating work of the Spirit. We must recognize our complete difference from divinity and the impact of the fall and acknowledge our limitations.
What I will say is if you have a question about what I mean, it is far better to ask than to assume. If you know the old adage about assuming then you will understand the import.
@Alan Cross
Alan,
Twice you have referred to something as having been a consequence of postmodernism. For the sake of clarification, are you talking about postmodernism as a mood, philosophy, ehtos? Relativism has been around longer than postmodernism. In fact, there is as much relativism in the modern project.
It is funny. Blackaby suggested the sources that keep us tethered. One of those sources he noted was the Church. Now we bought Blackaby hook, line, and sinker. But when it comes to giving the Church a place in our framework for authority we wince for fear of our Roman Catholic friends’ model. There is a little book out, The Shape of Sola Scriptura. There is a way to view the Church/Tradition as not above Scripture but not a full rung below either.
What keeps us tethered? Jesus. Certainly. But as you note from Hirsch, which Jesus. Yancey wrote a beautiful little book, The Jesus I Never Knew. Whose vision? Scripture. Sure. But, as this post and the comments point out we have been too independent in our interpretation and we want “my” interpretation. Church history proves what happens when it is “mine” and not “ours.” The Spirit. Of course, the Spirit will not illuminate the Scriptures nor mediate the presence of Jesus in a way that contradicts the life of Jesus. Now we are getting to the place of hermeneutics full tilt. Who gets to decide precisely what Jesus meant in this parable or that parable, by this reference or that reference? These points of tethering combine to hold us within the band of orthodoxy as best as is humanly possible.
The idea/notion you can transcend your situation while laudable has not been proven possible in human history nor in the history of the Church. Arguing for it seems a diversion of good energy. Striving for unity, Eph. 4, now that is a place worth spending some time and energy. But, it will come via humility, epistemic humility. Not shouting I am right and you are wrong as if the volume of sound or the number of words make it so.
@Benji Ramsaur
That’s interesting because I’ve read a bit of Van Til myself and lean heavily in a presuppositional direction. But that just means that I don’t worry too much about arguing with other’s presuppositions. I presume certain things to be true and believe the testimony of Scripture, the church and a Christian life will be all the evidence needed. In the end the Spirit will convert through those means, not a well-crafted argument or some theological foundational agreement like an “objective hermeneutic.” Secondly, I never said that perspective and subjective were equivalents, though I’m more than happy to admit that I don’t believe there is such a thing as human objectivity. I’m not saying there is nothing that is “really real in and of itself.” I’m simply saying that, because of human limitations we can never be perfectly objective. The reason I think that is important goes to the heart of this discussion. If I claim objectivity and you disagree with me then I am obviously right and you are obviously wrong and all of that is based upon me in the end (you can say that it is based on Scripture, but it is based on Scripture distinctly as I understand it. What if you understand it differently? In the end it becomes an exercise in my exerting my individual perspective (whether you think that is objective or subjective will matter very little in the end) against yours.
But you keep wanting to agree with Todd. I can tell it. You keep talking about relying on others (“the church”) to work out this process. You’ve even mentioned creeds and confessions – which is the church speaking, not just Benji’s (or Paul’s) individual interpretation based on some objective standard. No, we listen to the church when she has spoken.
And this is where I would address the scenario you’ve introduced regarding the heretic. Why is he a heretic? For a variety of reasons, but chiefly because his belief contradicts Scripture (but, get this) as the Church has affirmed. If Arius had won the day it would be you and me who were the heretics and not this man. I’m no Catholic, but I do believe that God’s Spirit works through the church. Imperfectly (just as he works through me imperfectly so often), but he works through the church nonetheless. I don’t believe it was just luck that Arius was the one declared the heretic.
Now, I would tell this man that he is a heretic. I would tell him that his position is in conflict with the apostolic witness of Scripture and the historic witness of the church. If he wants to go start a new church or just join the Jehovah’s Witnesses more power to him. I will tell him that I think that decision will be damning to his soul, but my only job is to warn him. It is God he will stand before one day, not Paul. I have to release him to do whatever he’s going to do and then pray God works in his heart to bring him to the light. I don’t need an objective hermeneutic to do any of that and I don’t even need to convince him that his relativism is wrong.
I guess I’ve been influenced by Dallas Willard who has written that his approach is to tell people like that something along the lines of: If you can find a better way to live than the Christian faith then go for it. I don’t think you’ll actually find it and you will discover that all alternatives are empty, but do what you think you must. I’ll stand by the Christ who has transformed me.
No, it isn’t. It is testimony vs. testimony when it comes to what this man will do with his own soul, but when he brings a testimony into the church that contradicts what the church has affirmed as apostolic teaching for thousands of years his liberty ends. He’s free to believe that as an individual, but not as a member of the church. This is where our Western individualism has infected the church (obscuring our “objectivity”). We think that because a person is free to hold a belief he is free to hold it in any context, but he’s not. He’s not free to be both a heretic and a member of the Christian church at the same time.
Todd,
So, I keep calling for humility throughout the discussion. Conviction combined with humility seems to be a good approach.
As for my allusions to postmodernism, I try not to get into the varieties of definitions when it comes to postmodern-ism-ity. It all gets rather confusing depending on which philosopher said what until terms are useless and conversation breaks down. I am simply referring to the deconstruction of the Enlightenment project that produced Modernity with all of its appeals to Reason, human progress, and the idea that if we were educated and used our human faculties we would all come to the same conclusion on everything. Clearly, that is not so. You are right, relativism has always been with us and this is what Carson was trying to get at with his “perspectivalist” statement that I referred to in comment 1. It has always been with us because we are always seeing something “relative to” our own environment and experience.
While I think that much of he postmodern critique is correct, if we are healthy, its result should be that it produces humility and an awareness that even in our confidence and even certainty, we do not fully understand. So, we can always learn from others. This is why I can read N.T. Wright and Piper and be blessed by both. It is why I can read Calvin and Wesley and see the work of God in both of them. The church is to declare the “manifold wisdom” of God. That means multi-faceted and multi-colored. God is too big for us to systematize Him into bullet points. We do not grasp it all, so worship and awe are the proper responses.
Yet, we don’t need to fall into doubt, skepticism, and questioning everything. That is not what you are promoting, I know, but that is where some will take it. Just because I say that we can be confident, even certain of some things, does not mean that I am going to yell, scream, pound my fists, or force others to follow. Just because you say that we cannot be as certain does not mean that you are sliding into liberalism and will be joining with Bishop Spong anytime soon. I think that there are third ways through all of this that come from the Spirit and transcend our understanding. We don’t have to categorize everything into neat little boxes. As for me, I think that it is possible to be certain, yet humble and open to the fact that God is bigger than me. That might make EVERYONE uncomfortable, but I believe that it is a proper third way between the errors of liberalism and fundamentalism.
@Alan Cross
Alan,
I thought about leaving this alone. Then I thought it would be good for our readers to know we often see things differently and still love each other, encourage each other, and work with each other. So …
We have said some very similar things. In fact, I pointed earlier to the necessity of hearing from a variety of voices in the Christian tradition. Acceptance of their value does not equal agreement with their conclusions. At the same time it does not give me license to summarily dismiss them out of hand when I judge their conclusion to come up short. You say much the same in your second paragraph.
We here have quibbled over words. For some it is minutiae. In our world, words matter. How we hear them matters. What we mean by them matters. When we throw, for example, postmodernism around and then look for a way out by saying,
As for my allusions to postmodernism, I try not to get into the varieties of definitions when it comes to postmodern-ism-ity. It all gets rather confusing depending on which philosopher said what until terms are useless and conversation breaks down.
You go on to describe what you mean in terms of “deconstruction.” Some would leave that at postmodernism, others would find it only a narrow part of the project. It does matter. For when we use a word in our pejorative sense, another person may well take it in its academic or social context and we miss out on connections with our own transitioning culture. This may not signal a major difference as we have worked through this thread, but it is a difference nonetheless.
Lastly, your final paragraph draws me to say doubt is under-rated. It is not that we give into doubt in the Cartesian fable. Instead, honest doubts actually feed/drive faith to understanding. David Dark recently wrote, The Sacredness of Questioning Everything. I have questions. I understand the Reformed response, the Arminian response. The non-theist response. The agnostic response. The atheist response. These questions sometimes occur as I encounter differing understandings of the way the world works and wonder how is it I assert that it works “this” way. The process is a refining that may only occur via epistemic humility.
In my responses to Benji I have quickly noted the need for dependence on the Spirit, the Church, the Scriptures. Some do not like putting them together. But, I find it far better than me with my own Bible. I am glad you do not think I will end up with Bishop Spong. It leaves me with the knowledge you know how to dialogue without reference the the slippery slope fallacy.
I will end by suggesting the third way between the left and the right, if those are proper polarizations which some simply see as two sides of the same coin. is much more broad that “my” third way. Analogies are often the bane of conversation but if Christian orthodoxy were a river, I would assume the banks on the left and the right to be both banks. That is an indication of the limits. Now unless we are talking about a wadi, the width of the river is the proverbial “third way.” We who like to travel that way must be comfortable with those who travel that way with others who hug one bank or another. If we refuse then we really have landed on a bank thinking we are still in the river.
I am glad we get to venture this project together. David and I were talking today. Only if we could have these kinds of conversations and garner commenters and charitable conversations. Our tribe’s insatiable desire for the all to common train wreck leaves us more interested in shows like ET than anything on the Discovery channel.
Peace, friend.
Todd,
You earlier said “…contends confidence to be our assertive word as opposed to certainty. This is my language of choice.”
Then I said “So, if I may use your language, then you are confident that Jesus died on the cross, but not certain.”
Now you say “What I did not say was that I meekly declare what I believe. I will sound as certain as the next who believes in what they hold.”
So, if I may use your own language, it seems to comes out like this:
1. Todd is not certain.
2. Todd is confident.
3. Todd will sound certain.
Is this right?
Paul,
“That’s interesting because I’ve read a bit of Van Til myself and lean heavily in a presuppositional direction. But that just means that I don’t worry too much about arguing with other’s presuppositions.”
Then I don’t think you understand and lean towards presuppositionalism at that point then.
“No, it isn’t. It is testimony vs. testimony when it comes to what this man will do with his own soul, but when he brings a testimony into the church that contradicts what the church has affirmed as apostolic teaching for thousands of years his liberty ends.”
That’s true. However, I think the church should be able to “justify” that affirmation from the apostolic teaching instead of relying on mere majoritarianism as a justification in and of itself. Of course, in the particular case of proving that “Jesus is the Son of God” from the apostolic teaching, that would be easy.
Benji,
Quote mining does not get to the point. If you cannot grasp what I have written in the cumulative replies in this thread then I have either communicated poorly or you prefer to engage via pull quotes. No, you syllogistic attempt fails to get my point.
We do not share the same presuppositions. In VanTilian fashion one of us must argue the debate to win the battle of presuppositions. In certain contexts a presuppositional apologetic or polemic works. In these instances where language seems to be the barrier agreement at the presuppositional level is difficult if not impossible. This format does net lend itself to this kind of inside baseball game very well. I would be happy to carry this on via phone or email.
Phfft. I’m wright and all of you are rong.