Theology and Logic Pt. 2
It is very obvious that I have been misunderstood. Many people who have read the previous post and my comments on Theology for the Masses. It seems to others who read my comments that I abhor philosophy and at the same time I use it all the time. I do not believe that in any way shape or form! Philosophy is important for by this we can know that we are rational creatures made in the image of a rational God. God is the author and source of philosophy and logic.
What I did say is that I don’t feel that we can argue doctrine extra-biblically. When we do that, we logicize God and he loses his majesty. The only way to know God is through his word. There are many ways to know about God in many ways. Philosophy, math, science, and other areas can lead us to a knowledge of God, but they do not lead us to God. They aren’t saving light, only Jesus is.
I was told that all my systems of belief are based in some way on philosophy. I agree totally. However, those philosophies were based upon exegetical studies of the Bible. They were not based upon philosophical speculation. I said that philosophy was subjective and was laughed at. That tells me a.) that the person laughing looked upon my comments as childish or not serious; b.) that the person did not try to understand exactly what I was saying. Philosophy is subjective because it is based upon our assumptions and presuppositions. God’s word is not subjective but is objective. It does not have any biases. I said that our philosophy must be conformed to our work of exegesis. Logic helps take our conclusions and formulate them, as the Reformers did. Philosophy does not tell us if our conclusions are right. Our exegesis tells us if our philosophy is correct. God’s word must be held as the highest standard of knowledge and must be the sole authority upon which we base our arguments, especially when it comes to theology and all it entails. We must put the Bible to the status as an idol but it must be our sole authority upon which we base all other knowledge.
If philosophy is not squaring with exegetical conclusions, test the philosophy in light of Scripture. Do not say that the exegesis is wrong and then go back and change that. When an objection to doctrine arises because it is not logical. Show us where it is illogical in the exegesis. Our exegesis should be logical. God’s word is logical. Do not say that your exegesis is wrong but not point out where it is wrong. That does not contribute to the discussion on the given doctrine.
I am in favor of using logic and all other areas of knowledge. But only if it is used in submission and constrained by the living and breathing word of God upon which God has revealed himself to man for salvation and walk of life. It is really upsetting that everybody seems to be misreading or misquoting my view of philosophy and its place in relationship to Scripture. I do not worship the pages of the Bible for it is the God who wrote that Bible that makes the Bible worth anything. I simply appeal to the highest authority I have to appeal to. It’s not logic, it’s not math, nor is it any other area of human knowledge. I appeal only to Scripture.
Related posts:
3 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Hank,
I guess that is my internet name for you. I feel like it is easier to distinguish myself from you that way, I hope you don’t mind me calling you Hank all the time.
Anyway, as you see the need to vindicate your views, so do I.
We have done a lot of first principles around here this week. One of my main points is that exegesis is philosophy! Philosophy is the love of wisdom, or restated, trying to see the world in an organized way. Logic is a branch of philosophy that seeks to set forth rules of how to order thoughts and to draw conclusions from premises. In exegesis, the verses are the premises and then doctrines are formed using logic. A doctrinal framework is a philosophic system. I sense that you are confusing other philosophic frameworks for philosophy itself.
It may not, but anytime someone goes to talk about it that person has biases, whether they like it or not, and they must be considered.
You do point to that fact later on in your post.
With that said, I do want to make some things clear. I was never laughing at you, thinking your views are/were childish, or not trying to understand what you were saying. I also do not think that you are worshiping the Bible as an idol. Hank, from what I know of you, I know those things are not true.
I am just trying to say that in appealing to scripture, you by thinking, are using philosophy and logic.
hhmmm…. On this point I wonder. Do we need to base our cosmology on the bible? Our transportation methods on the Bible? I think the Bible is an authority on matters that it concerns itself with, but that it does not concern itself with all areas of knowledge. What governmental structure does it appeal to in the absence of direct divine relevation?
Henry,
I know that you were not laughing at me. It was another blogger on Mass Theology. I know that exegesis is using philosophy and I know the Greek meaning of philosophy. Here’s what I’m saying. When we just use philosophy w/o Scripture, we are not anchored in God’s objective revelation. Therefore all of our biasis are in play and all presuppositions are involved. The Bible will remove many of them, I say many because there are some that we will not let the Bible remove.
But also our arguments now contain solid authority. When we assert our own philosophy, we are asserting our own authority. What authority do we posses? I have no more than you do. Therefore there is nothing higher and no way to one way of thinking as the preferred way, we are finite and so we by ourselves cannot decide which is absolutely correct. But God’s word as our anchor gives us an authority to which we base our philosophy upon. Now we have something to make assertions that if proven correct are binding. They stand because of God and his revelation to man, not because of man’s own opinions. This does not mean that our interpretation isn’t man’s opinion but rather it is more authoritative and reliable because of its anchor.
I do not think you have stated it correctly when you say “the Bible is an authority.” That is absolutely untrue. Nothing is more authoritative on what the Bible covers than the Bible. Otherwise we are opening up the Q’ran(however you spell that) and other “holy and divine writings” up as authorities. They aren’t. The Book of Mormon is not an authority. Only the Bible.
I know what you are trying to do and as I said in the first post, “Theology and Logic”, it is a grand goal. However, when people do laugh and call me “legalistic” for defending my views biblically while at the same time refuse to defend their goals with the Bible, it is very frustrating and hurtful. No body loves grace like I do. That’s a trait of Calvinism.
When saying an authority, I mean to say that I view it as an authority on spiritual matters. The only authority save for God himself.
I do not view it as an authority on Science, Economics, Law (direct law, maybe for principles of justices, but not on American Law), Biology, ect… It simply does not claim to be an authority in those areas.
Since I hold it to be the authority in the area it claims to be and yet not the authority in each and every area of study, that I why I am confident to say it is an authority and yet not use other religion’s scriptures as spiritual authorities.