My focus in this post is to encourage accurate, irenic and precise exegesis. I have been motivated to address this topic by the frequency with which I have seen this endeavor characterized as 'fighting'. To do so is both inaccurate and demeaning of a noble and biblical endeavor. Discovering the correct meaning of any given portion of God's word is commanded by the Apostle Paul in the Pastoral Epistles.
1 Timothy 1:3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,
1 Timothy 4:6 If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed.
1 Timothy 6:3-5 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, . . . .
Titus 1:9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
Titus 2:1 But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine.
First, the "Isms" that I referred to. This would be Arminian-ism, Calvin-ism, and Traditional-ism. Those that use the term 'fighting' when blogging about any of the three begin with a very flawed premise. While church history is replete with expressions from all three, none of the three enjoy the highest level of authority in theological discourse. This is reserved for the text of Scripture accurately opened up by irenic, compassionate and precise exegesis. It matters most whether my posture or yours on any given issue agrees with what the text says, not what any other exegete or system may claim the text says or whether we agree with one another. We are not the final arbiters, Scripture is. Most who read in this blogosphere claim to embrace the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Yet, one encounters some very sloppy and inaccurate pronouncements issuing from a failure in this very realm. These inaccuracies are almost always the result of bad hermeneutical and exegetical practices which are in and of themselves a denial of the Authority of Scripture. Often the exegete does not even require proficiency in the original languages. They simply need to apply some basic rules of interpretation and grammar; context, pronouns require an antecedent noun, etc.
Second, the 'Fighting' as it is often labeled. My observation is that this terminology is applied when there is a disagreement on the meaning of a given text of Scripture. This is unfortunately an accurate designation for what often flows from those disagreements. However, there is a logical reason for this. The resolutions sought, the methodology applied in seeking resolution is Polemics, not exegesis. This reduces the meaning of a given portion of God's Word to the mere opinion of the exegete, not of what the text actually says. The loudest verbosity wins the day. SAD!
Let me offer what is most assuredly one of the most frequent and egregious examples - John 3:16.
There is no such word in the text of John 3:16 as 'whosoever'. This interpretation comes from the language of the KJV but it does not appear in the most reliable manuscripts. This passage does not declare 'how much' God loved the world. The first word in the text is 'outos, an adverb of manner. God loved the world in this manner. What manner? This adverb points the reader back to John 3:14-15. As Moses lifted up the serpent . . . In this manner God loved the world, He lifted up His Son.
There is a principle in both the natural and spiritual realms called the Law of Non-Contradiction; A cannot be non-A etc. God is not schizophrenic. Scripture does not posit contradictory postulates; say one thing in one verse and then contradict that in another. Assuredly there are apparent contradictions but no real ones. This means that the each portion of God's Word has one correct interpretation. This is the challenge we all face in doing accurate exegesis - - discovering the correct meaning.
Third, Exegesis. I have long appealed for a format in which those with differing interpretations of Scripture post the passage on the screen in two columns in the original languages. Each interpreter takes 15 minutes and offers his interpretation applying grammar, context, history, culture, etc. etc. Only one can be correct. Both may be incorrect. One correct and the other incorrect. But they cannot claim the Scripture means two distinctly different things and both be correct. This is vastly different than Polemics. The text we all claim to honor and abide by will in fact resolve our difference when we submit ourselves to the rigors requisite in doing irenic, compassionate and accurate exegesis.
There are Essentials (The Deity of Christ, The Inspiration of Scripture) and there are Distinctives (A-Mill, Pre-Mill, etc.). I believe the Doctrine of Soteriology, Salvation is an Essential. God and man cannot be co-sovereigns. In the "Statement" floated just before the Convention this issue was brought front and center. Some who signed the statement claimed it was/is not semi-pelagian. By all historical theology and exegesis it most assuredly is. Calling a dog a cat will never make him meow! Claiming that statement is not semi-pelagian does not make that a "True Truth" as our friend Francis Schaeffer would say. It is what it is.
At the recent SBC Convention in New Orleans Pastor David Platt quoted 2 Peter 3:9, God is not willing that any should perish. He did so in the manner in which it is most frequently cited. I offer this link which provides a counter-understanding of what David said and what is grammatically and exegetically correct. If this is not so, please provide an irenic, accurate and sound exegetical refutation of this meaning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIPabz-01lY
Because we are all (myself included, perhaps first on this list) sinners we labor in our endeavor to know what God's Word says with this limiting factor. I will always want to believe that the interpretation I have reached is the correct one. I have dedicated my life to this effort. My wife and children sacrificed so that I could acquire the skills to do so. This is precisely why God gives us the one-another commands. We are to be accountable in life and in exegesis. We need one another as brothers whose chief end is to glorify God. This protects me from the ugly tincture of pride and arrogance. With all this being true, there is still the very real factor that we must face head on. It is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of Kings to search it out (Prov. 25:2).
The majority of issues CAN BE RESOLVED by humble submission to what the text says. I pray that we abandon the hostile polemics and engage some systematic and persistent exegesis that leads out into the open (cf. John 1:18) what God's word says. We must address the text. We must not engage in character assassination and ugly name-calling. Take the high road. Be true and honorable pastor/scholars. We simply must not ever reduce ourselves to the groveling "can't we all just get along", "go along to get along" theology that some claim is where we should be headed. LORD make us all men of honor, dignity and precision in the way we handle Your word. There may be 'two streams' in SBC life but there is only one correct meaning for each portion of God's Word. LORD give us grace to discover this together with humility and an accuracy that honors Your Holy Name!
This link is an interview by R.C. Sproul of D.A. Carson on Principles of Sound Exegesis. Excellent!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlZV40mBNDs
No comments:
Post a Comment