What SAY You???
Am I just absolutely missing it? Or perhaps, I am losing my mind and any amount of theological discernment, which the good Lord bestowed upon me, no matter how small the actual bestowment was?
I say that to say, I am getting exhausted with fighting ridiculous wars. Ok, maybe not 'wars' per-se, but awkward confrontations none-the-less.
What's the battle (or confrontation) you ask? Inerrancy? Imputation? The deity of Jesus the Son? NO! I wish! The confrontation is over simple terminology and choices in vocabulary. No, I am not talking about @#$% or anything of the sort, at least not in my mind anyway. Rather, I am talking about TULIP. In that, I am not even suggesting that you must believe all aspects of TULIP in every way, shape or form, but I am suggesting that TULIP ought to no longer be considered to be synonomous with the unpardenable sin!
I am arguing for a reenlistment of basic terms that enable us, and have enabled God's people for centuries, to understand propositions of Scripture in an orderly and profitable fashion. For many of us, this is simply called Systematic Theology! It has been a beloved practice of the church since its birth in Acts!
Why then, (if this is so beloved) can some say that 'I use only biblical terms' and with that treat you as though you are being unbiblical (nearly ungodly) in your theological statements and therefore rendering you as irresponsible in your handling of the holy Scriptures? It is also spun that those who are challenging the reenlistment of TULIP are self-serving and or arrogant. This MUST stop!
The same folks that say to only use biblical terms also encourage, yea, preach, the need for systematic theology! Sometimes, I wish I could ask, "Is there ever a mention of the word systematic in the Scriptures?" I do not recall (correct me if I am wrong) of there ever being an admonition for a systematic ordering of Scripture at ALL or by ANY given author? So, I ask you, how can systematic terms, which have been proven to be brilliantly potent for the sake of the church for literally hundreds of years be cast aside, so too those who use them be cast aside, by the same men who claim to "cherish" the Systematic treatment and understanding of Scripture?
For example, the words "systematic" and "unconditional election" are both extra biblical terms employed by the church for the sake of understanding propositions within the holy Scriptures in a discernable and orderly fashion. How then is it that we can so easily choose one to be rendered a blessing (the word and idea of 'systematic') and the other (unconditional election) nearly to be damning (in the context of public teaching)?
In sum, I find this subjective selectivity of "ok" theological terminology to be utterly maddening! Either I am losing my mind or, well, I'm right, and that would be aaaaaallright.
Can I get a witness?
posted by adam at 5:30 PM
18 Comments:
Adam,
Allow me to testify. I am completely with you. Those who function on the pretense of refusing to use dogmatic terms or categories are (unintentionally?) misleading. The assumption that one is treating the text unbiasedly when he does not attach it to systematic categories is laughable. Just as systematic theology needs biblical theology, so biblical theology needs to move to systematic theology. Thought not necessarily, I think the disdain for certain dogmatic terms comes more from polical or pastoral concerns than from theological. We shouldn't be afraid to use terms to define what we believe when the terms are well defined . . . otherwise, we reinvent the wheel with every sentence.
Adam,
You can definitely get a witness. I am with you all the way, brother! Being afraid of terms that simply explain the clear doctrines of Scripture is foolishness. I like the point by Baylor that terms need to be defined. In our time biblical definitions of biblical and extra biblical terms must be used (i.e., justification, particular redemption). And no, you are not losing your theological discernment. Keep it up!
James
Again to quote the aged sage of us all, "Terms speed up the coversation." If we have to use biblical terms to and texts to lead into a conversation every conversation must begin with creation and Theology Proper (in my example I'm already using non-biblical terms b/c I cannot take the space or time to lead up to my example). Thus, to talk about salvation we should not have to take a running start. Those in the conversation who have agreed upon definition of terms need them to be used to communicate. When I say "Calvinist" that has a certain meaning in the conversation just as Exclusivist, Baptist, or Federalist imputation. It speeds up the conversation to get to my point.
Exactly, we should not have to "reinvent the wheel" everytime we want to speak.
Thus, I think that the call for, dare I say, "termilogical" EDUCATION among those whom we have a chance to consistently teach is key. There is a meaning behind the words that we use not just connotatively! Everyone wants to get hung up on connotative 'rings' rather than the actual meaningful definition of the term itself.
I am just asking for the chance to explain the actual definitions as oppossed to dying out over the assumptions, connotations, worrisome conclusions, and illinformed denouncements of theological terms.
That's great to hear a local church example/solution to our topic of interest. Thanks Ed.
I think that this 'education' can happen.
It can, and does happen all of the time in confessional/denominational churches. While there are many benefits to a church being independent, this is one area that tends to suffer.
AT asked:
I do not recall (correct me if I am wrong) of there ever being an admonition for a systematic ordering of Scripture at ALL or by ANY given author?
Read the opening of Luke's Gospel:
Luke 1:3 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus (NIV).
That settles it: you're gay. Okay, I realize this doesn't actually argue against your point which I am actually in agreement with; I just felt like calling you out and telling you you're gay.
Hey, don't be hatin' there's enough love to go around even for sweater-vests who argue for lukan systmematic theology.
That was neat, nate, reeeeaaal neat.
i'd say that much learning has made you mad, but since you missed the obvious lukan exhortation after 3 years in seminary - your learning speaks for itself (good call, mihelis).
the bottom line is this, thomas:
you're an angry, angry man
While I appreciate the endorsement, Logan, I do have to admit, the conclusion of your comments smacks of the pot calling the kettle black :-) Remember, Baylor put you and Hayton up their with Luther -- perhaps he should have included Thomas and made you the Lutheran trinity!
i remember it well...
however, i was shocked to see you appealing to baylor (as if he were a credible source). this member of the lutheran trinity deems that as illegitimate research, lacking a credible witness.
have you so soon forgotten the esteemed pronouncement of your beloved chancellor set forth in his dedicatory prayer?!? winsome, mihelis...that's right - winsome!(surely his opinion is worth more than baylors any day of the week)
Logan, I think you meant to say "(surely his opinion is worth more than Baylor's any day of the week)."
If you would have proof read you would see that you failed to capitalize my name, and you missed an apostrophe. You suck.
I love that!!! Logan get it write you speling sicho!!!
baylor,
it is with great intentionality that i disrespect your name and grammar when referencing you.
only the Lord is worthy of special distinction, and i gladly reduce you to nothing more than a common reprobate. of course, you'll notice that i do the same thing with myself (lowercase "i's"), and that's because i'm humble...
someone's got to counterbalance your arrogance - which is beginning to rival that of Dwight Schroot.
that would be fine thomas, if you had intentionally misspelled those words [particularly after misspelling Demas (Demis) this morning in exegesis].
what kind of pathetic nt student are you, anyway?
thank you, my lutheran brother.
I love you guys.
Hey, I know this is an old discussion I'm jumping in on here, and I certainly don't want to get in the middle of what seems to be a mental brawl far beyond my ability to cope with. So I'll be brief.
Of course, your point is absolutely right, Adam. To say what the Bible says and the mean what the Bible means are VERY different things!
One of my teens is constantly asking me why people are afraid of words like "Calvinism," "limited atonement," etc. I shake my head and have to tell him, "Politics." No one wants to hurt anyone's feelings or offend them.
Now, I must say, there's some advantage to a cautious and gracious approach to speaking (Col. 4:6), but I'm getting just as fed up as you guys about having to walk on eggshells when it comes to terminology.
Okay...my two cents have been spent.
Post a Comment
<< Home