My Theological Method: Text Over Philosophical Arguments

Ever since I was 18 or so, I have had a keen interest in theology.  I guess it came from the church that I attended at the time which was very strong on the essential, core doctrines of the Christian faith.  It was always assumed that the Bible was clear on the things that it teaches.  Anything that was affirmed was always backed up with Scriptural proof.  Now sometimes, good hermeneutics weren't always used.  I learned later on about the importance of good hermeneutics, but the idea that theological assertions should have Scripture as the foundation was taught to me very early on in my walk with the Master.

However, I later found out as I began to dialogue (and debate) with others that, in some cases, logical or philosophical reasoning was (at least de facto) equal to or higher than the actual words of the text.  And even if the text clearly said X, it couldn't mean X because that would mean Y, so that text must teach Z.  Now in fairness, the things that the Scripture teaches about theological issues do have theological and philosophical implications that cannot be ignored, but I found that those implications (or perceived implications) were placed onto the text and the text was reinterpreted to fit or disprove those implications.

As an example, Romans 9 teaches God's unconditional election of some to life and some to death. 

...For He [God] says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."  So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.  For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."  So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Romans 9:15-18 ESV

This text is not unclear.  God shows saving mercy to whomever he chooses, and withholds it from whomever he chooses.  This does however lead to some theological implications that Paul addresses in the following verses (though he simply asserts God's right to do what he wills with his own creation).  It is not my purpose here to go into these, except to point out that while this Scripture (and others like it) are pretty straitforward, many reject its teaching because in their minds, it might lead to questions like, "Is God then the author of evil?"  "What about free will?"  These are not necessarily bad questions, and they do deserve answers, but my point is simply to argue that we should subject those questions to the clear teaching of the Scripture.  Later, we can attempt to answer those questions in a way that honors the meaning of the text.

In summary, I am not suggesting that we stop asking questions or drawing implications from Scriptures.  Only that the meaning of the specific Scripture must be made priority, and only after that do we ask the theological, philosophical and logical questions.  I have found that when I do that, the questions are much easier to answer and the Scriptures are (a little) easier to interpret.  It is not my intention to be harsh or demeaning, only to show what my observations have been (whether rightly or wrongly) and to make clear where I stand.  Blessings!

The Glory of God: More Important Than Anything Else

I remember my first day of classes in bible college in the Fall of 2003. I was 19 years old and had left home for the first time to attend this evangelical bible college to study pastoral ministry. The class was Old Testament Survey and my professor began the class by sharing one of his favorite verses.  In this case, it was Isaiah 48:11; For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another (ESV). He spent a good portion of the rest of the class expounding on how God's glory is what most motivates God to act in history. God's passion for His own honor and glory is the key to understanding the Bible. By implication, theologies which start with the love of God are at best incomplete, and at worst, horribly man-centered.

As one can imagine, I struggled at first with this concept and would for several years after. How could God love Himself more than anything else? Isn't that vanity and arrogance? Does He really truly love me then? For the next few weeks, even in the midst of my studies, I searched the Scriptures to see if what my professor had said was really true. I couldn't deny that God was concerned about His glory and the honor of His name. Several Scriptures point to this. Just two verses prior to Isaiah 48:11, verse 9 says:

For my names' sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it from you, that I may not cut you off (ESV).

God's reason for not destroying Judah for its sin was to protect the honor of His name! Or there was Romans 11:33-36,

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. (NASB)

God's restoration of Israel from exile is done for the sake of God's name and honor:

Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD, "It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes." (Ezekiel 36:22,23 ESV)

However, it was later that I finally came to better understand this teaching. While I couldn't deny what the Scripture plainly said, I was still troubled by some of the philosophical implications. How could God say He sent His Son to die for me when His own glory seemed to be the motivator. Just as I couldn't deny the Bible's teaching about God's glory, I also couldn't deny its teaching of His love for me, or His covenant love for His elect. I had heard some explanations of this relationship but had always found them wanting. There was such a desire to not be "man-centered" that it seemed His zealous love for His people had to somehow be downplayed (verbal denials to this notwithstanding).

I finally found a satisfying answer to this through understanding better the biblical doctrine of the Imago Dei or the image of God. In Genesis 1:26,27 we read of God's creation of the human race as male and female:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the dirds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth". So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (ESV). 

In a nutshell, I learned that being made in God's image was being made in such a way that human beings, male and female, reflect God's very nature and character back to God Himself. Man was created to do the kinds of things that God does; like create, rule, name, and subdue. When man does these things thankfully to God, God sees a reflection of His own good character and God's heart is pleased and His name is glorified.

So I learned that by loving us, He is actually still loving Himself. Any attack of the dignity of a human being is an attack on God! And I also learned that even though sin damaged that image so that people do things that are very un-God, they still have enough of it that God still loves the very human race that turned against Him in Adam.

The second philosophical dilemma that was solved was whether God is vain or arrogant in loving Himself over everything else. The answer came to me in the form of a question. If I am commanded to worship God, then what does God worship? The answer was obvious. God worships God! If God is the most glorious, good, holy, loving, powerful, merciful, compassionate, all-knowing, all-seeing, everywhere-present, uncreated God that the Bible declares Him to be, then doesn't it stand to reason that God knows that!? And would it not be wrong for God to not love what is most lovable? Pride is only the illusion of greatness. Vanity is only the illusion of beauty. God actually is great. God is beautiful. So it is not vanity, nor arrogance, nor hubris, it is truth. 

I hope that this short post is enough for whoever reads it to be just as enthralled by God as I am, and more concerned for His honor than for anything else in the world. I pray that God is indeed glorified by these short words.