Email Me
On the radio I once heard John MacArthur say that most Biblical doctrines include a paradox such as the teaching on election and freewill. The Bible teaches both that God chose those who would be saved before time began and that we are volitional creatures who must make a decision to follow God and will be held accountable for our decision. Reconciling these two teachings is a stumbling block for many. We, who believe the Bible to be internally consistent and without error, must not pick and chose which half of a paradox to accept. Yet we are driven by our desire to understand God's wisdom and to give a defense for the inerrancy of the Bible to reconcile these paradoxes. Such paradoxes are only resolved with difficulty by understanding what the Bible says about our nature, God's nature, and our relationship with God.
Where the interpreter of a Bible passage is convinced of the Arminian position the interpretation of a passage explicitly saying that God elected or chose must be in the light of God's foreknowledge. For those convinced of the Reformed position, the passage says explicitly that God chose who would be saved before time began. A passage where the term foreknowledge is used is interpreted by the Arminian as God's omnipotent view of history and by the Reformed as God's having a relationship with the elect before creation.
Another paradox is in the Trinity. We have a being that is both singular and plural. This is additionally complicated by the second person of the Trinity taking on an additional nature in the incarnation. The Trinity is an impossible paradox. All analogies tend to obfuscate and not enlighten. We have no way to comprehend a being that can be both singular and plural. We can apprehend from the Bible that this is so but we can't explain or comprehend how it can be so. It is not unusual for people to simply ignore or interpret away the massive scriptural argument for the Trinitarian view of God.
We say that the Holy Spirit is our guide in interpretation. Is it the Holy Spirit where the human interpreter is following a personal or denominational paradigm when interpreting? The Holy Spirit is our guide in resolving the seeming paradoxes but is not a helper in justifying what we with our human limitations want to believe the Bible is saying.
We also say that God's wisdom exceeds and is different from mans' wisdom. To understand the nature of these debates over election and the Trinity it might be helpful to understand the nature of mans' wisdom to help discern when the Holy Spirit or mans' spirit is instructing our interpretation.
An illustration of man's wisdom vs. God's wisdom is in this tongue-in-cheek list of the top ten reasons why God can't get university tenure:
10. Researchers can't replicate His results.
9. He failed to get permission from the ethics board to use human subjects.
8. He covered up one of his experiments by drowning the subjects.
7. Instead of showing up for lectures, He just told students to "Read the Book."
6. When He caught His first two students eating in class, He expelled them.
5. Although He listed only ten requirements, all students failed.
4. He had His son teach the class.
3. He dictated all of His own references.
2. He had only one publication, which lacked footnotes and a bibliography, and other people
did the actual writing.
1. He may have created the world, but what has he done lately?
A good description of mans' wisdom can be found in Kuhn's discussion of how human scientific knowledge progresses [Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2d ed. 1970)]. Kuhn describes scientific knowledge as existing within the confines of a governing world view or paradigm. A differing paradigm does not just have differing answers to existing questions but asks entirely different questions. The result is that those holding to such different paradigms can not even talk intelligently with one another as they would have different definitions for words and phrases and be pursuing entirely different knowledge. There is a tunnel vision that influences the interpretation of empirical evidence to fit the prejudice of the paradigm under which the interpreter is operating.
Denominational and personal paradigms govern not just the interpretation of Bible passages but the very questions for which answers are being sought. This is illustrated by the fundamental difference between eastern and western Christianity. Protestants and Roman Catholics are in agreement over the questions being asked but have a difference of opinion about the answers. Eastern Orthodoxy asks entirely different questions.
For Western Christianity, Protestants and Roman Catholics, fundamental questions are: How is a person saved? What is the church? Where does religious authority lie? Protestants and Catholics disagree about the answers but not about the questions. Corresponding questions asked in Eastern Orthodoxy might be stated as follows: How to restore the image of God in man? What is the work of the Church? What is the relationship of Church and State? Another way of viewing the basic differences is through the concept of mans' relationship with God. In the west it is stated in legal terms as the necessity of restoring the relationship between man and God which was severed as a result of sin. In the east sin is considered to have tarnished the image of God in man, man being made in God's image, with the necessity of restoring that image.
As a further example of a differing paradigm, the Liberal view is to allow the Bible to "speak to us." In other words, if it feels right then it is right for you. This is the truth is relative viewpoint from Postmodernist philosophy. This is similar to Kuhn's position that the operating paradigm is culturally determined but taken to another level of metaphysical abstraction. If all truth is relative then even scientific fact is also relative. To most rational thinkers this statement may seem contradictory but Peter Berkowitz in "Science Fiction" (New Republic Magazine, July 1, 1996, pp 15-16) described just this attitude of mind. "Postmodern incredulity, ..., is boastful, haughty and dismissive. It combines a certainty that older views--views about nature, social and political organization, the moral life and religious faith--are wrong, with a disdain for the ignorant multitudes who have in the past or continue in the present to embrace them." "What distinguishes postmodernism is the extreme and dogmatic belief that the principles of morality as well as reason itself are socially constructed--that is, created by human beings for pleasure and profit--and nothing more." Those interpreting the Bible from this extreme point of view would be asking the question who is going to gain from all this and how much. There would be little interest in the content.
Many Internet email discussions seem at some point to dissolve into frustration on the part of the debaters with a question such as, "Why can't you see the obvious meaning in these Bible passages?" The real problem is that the meaning intended by the questioner is not obvious to the other party. Each debater has entered the fray with differing questions and prejudices. Quoting long lists of Bible passages and asking the reader to "see" the obvious meaning is not going to convey any understanding of the point of view of the person posting the Bible passages. It is necessary first for all parties to understand the issues and definition of terms as each party to the debate understands them. Without a common understanding of the issues and terms involved, there can not be a meaningful debate over any biblical doctrine or passage.
Once the issues and terms are defined and the working paradigms (prejudices) are understood then the isogesis (reading meaning into the text) can be separated from the exegesis (reading meaning out of the text). Each person begins by believing that the meaning as he understands it comes from the text, but others may not see the matter the same way.
Simon Greenleaf in "The Testimony of the Evangelists" explains the required state of mind for objective study of the Bible as well as any I have seen. "... it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction. There should be a readiness, on our part, to investigate with candor, to follow the truth wherever it may lead us, ... The docility which true philosophy requires of her disciples is not a spirit of servility, or the surrender of the reason and judgment to whatsoever the teacher may inculcate; but it is a mind free from all pride of opinion, not hostile to the truth sought for, willing to pursue the inquiry, and impartially to weigh the arguments and evidence, and to acquiesce in the judgment of right reason. The investigation, moreover, should be pursued with the serious earnestness which becomes the greatness of the subject -- a subject fraught with such momentous consequences to man. It should be pursued as in the presence of God, and under the solemn sanctions created by a lively sense of his omniscience, and of our accountability to him for the right use of the faculties which he has bestowed."
|
Email Me |
Home Page | |
| © Copyright 2000 Stephen Daniel McLeod | ||