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!