There have always been battles raging in the realm of Theology concerning the formation and validity of Theological Systems. They exist today. Some are quite intense and sadly some very crude and malicious.
The existence of different conclusions resulting from the interpretation of the text of Scripture is a reality. Paul makes reference to such differences in his First Epistle to the Corinthians.
No doubt there have
to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. (1 Corinthians 11:19,
NIV).
The challenge of the exegete is to come to
the text free of pre-conceived notions or conclusions. This is no small task.
Knowing that we are handling the very words of God should make every person
engaging this noble endeavor think carefully and prayerfully about the process
they apply and the conclusions they reach.
This brings me to my concern. Sound exegesis
does not or should not produce any kind of “ism”! What we produce may be
characterized by others as an “ism”. That does not ipso facto make it such. To engage in careful, accurate and irenic
exegesis should produce sound theological conclusions that harmonize with God’s
purpose. Every exegete is a sinner and therefore must submit to multiple valid
principles of interpretation and also to a system of accountability. We should
listen with humility to what other competent theologians say about our work.
There is a very important principle of logic
that must be applied in this process of exegesis. It is the Law of
Non-Contradiction. When two people interpret a portion of God’s word there are
three identifiable and distinct possible outcomes.
1. Person A is correct and person B is
incorrect.
2. Person B is correct and person A is
incorrect.
3. Both person A and person B are incorrect.
What is absolutely impossible is that they
reach different conclusions and both be considered correct. The Holy Spirit has
one and only one correct meaning or interpretation for each and every portion
of God’s word. Further, God’s Word does not say one thing in one place and then
contradict that in another.
To characterize the results of sound accurate
and irenic exegesis as an “ism” so that you may then posit your contrary
interpretation as correct is to denigrate the Special Revelation we are
privileged to hold and the God who made himself known.
I make no pretense or claim that I have
perfected this skill. I adamantly and persistently declare that labeling sound
interpretations of Scripture as an “ism” is an egregious and serious distortion
of the noble task of exegesis.