Friends,
Let me give you some background of where I am at right now. I've been systematically going through the Five Points of Calvinism to see if they are biblically legit, when I got to our favorite L. I've been struggling mightily with this since any generalization I attempt to make seems contradictory in some sense to something else. For example, if Jesus died only for the elect, then there are so many verses with the words "all" and "world" and "everyone" that must be prefaced with, "i.e. all/the world of/everyone of the elect." If Jesus died for everyone, then how in the world are "all things" (specifically unbelievers) reconciled to God in Colossians 1:20? What exactly does the death of Christ accomplish for unbelievers? - it seems to do something (see Colossians 1:20, 1 Timothy 4:10, and 2 Peter 2:1), but how He is the Savior of all, reconciling all to Himself, and buying false teachers? I feel like I'm at a point where I can't find a biblical answer to those questions, and I'm not sure if I should attempt to answer them myself.
This is the danger: To get some perspective on my whole search, I sat back and wondered if I would offend a strict Limited Atonement Calvinist by saying Jesus is a ransom for all. The reason I pondered this is because it's a direct quote from the Bible, and yet it's very threatening to their theology! If we're offended by verses, or if this verse scares us, or if we diminish the importance of this verse, we need to repent of our theology. When I read that verse and some others mentioned above, the last thing I want to do is manipulate its meaning to serve my theology. I wonder if too many people put too much authority behind "theology based on logical consequences of what we do know for sure," even if it is not clearly taught in Scripture. This brings me to my questions:
To what extent is it good to develop a systematic theology of the Bible? Should we attempt to weave a nice Biblical theology that unites all seemingly contradictory statements? (Is that even possible?) Or should we simply proclaim what the Bible says, not going beyond Scripture to resolve the tension between some texts, in order to be faithful to God's revealed wisdom?
In other words, should we seek resolve antinomies (antinomies are defined by J.I. Packer to be things which appear to be contradictory because we cannot see how they can be true together) if we cannot do so with Scripture, or should we simply acknowledge that somehow they do not contradict?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It's amazing how right when God brings something to my mind, He bombards me with it. Since I've posted this, I've unintentionally read from 3 different authors insight about how to handle such dilemmas. Also, I just listened to a message by Driscoll from 2 Peter 3:14-18 that speaks directly to this issue (second half of the sermon). It's his newest: listen to it:
http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/trial/perseverance-until-god-is-finished-with-you
So, I have had just a brief amount of time to reflect on this question, therefore, what follows are preliminary thoughts.
1. Church history gives us to impetus for systematizing biblical concepts. The Patristics certainly sought to systematize their view of Christ, the Father, the Spirit, and many other biblical concepts.
2. Rampant heresy demands theological systematizing and biblical reflection. For example, hold that Christ is fully God and fully man because the hypostatic union had to be articulated in order to combat the Arian view of Christ. Heresy is no less rampant today than it was in the early church.
3. Our Lord systematized the law by summarizing it in two commands. When we systematize we seek to grasp as best we can what the scripture says on one subject in a myriad of texts. This is difficult, but has a place of importance in the Christian life.
4. Systematic theology has its limits and we must recognize this reality. The Bible is not a systematic text and we must not seek to harmonize what the text holds in tension (not contradiction).
5. We must never allow systematizing to remove the mystery that surrounds the great narrative of scripture. The atonement and how it works is both understandable and mysterious. We understand it to an extent and should seek to understand it as best we can. Simultaneously, we must recognize that their are aspects of the atonement that are either not fully revealed or totally comprehensible by our minds.
In summary, I think we should seek to understand what the scripture says cohesively about biblical doctrines, such as the atonement. However, I don't think we should seek to remove mystery or do violence to the text by trying to harmonize/systematize what the text leaves in tension.
Does this help? I'll have to check out Mark Driscoll's sermon!
Thanks Matt. As a mathematician who did nothing but proofs the last two years at PSU, I have really enjoyed going through the Bible for proofs. I've enjoyed discovering how Jesus is proved to be God and searching out proofs for the 5 points of Calvinism. I think 4 of them can be proven pretty easily from Scripture. I do find the question, "for whom did Jesus die?" to not be so easily proven - probably because it is multi-faceted like a diamond and perhaps doesn't lend itself well to such a narrow question.
I do agree with your initial responses, in particular the need to guard ourselves and the flock against heresy. Your thoughts are great to my general question of systematizing. My particular question, if I had not made it clear, is whether it is good to attempt to systematize what Scripture does not appear to fully explain (which you answered in numbers 4 and 5).
I think Driscoll's advise is good: dig in as much as you can, learn as much as you can, and realize that not all will be answered until we see Jesus. I think we need to be humble in our approach to the tensions of Scripture and not devise systems that will contradict Scripture. If we cannot do that, we must repent.
Yeah, and Driscoll's sermon is a great one.
I know this is a bad place to put this, but I'm at apple testing my new macbook
testing my new macbook pro
Andrea, your insight is amazing! Haha
Post a Comment