Theology or History
This post is about decision making. So, let the Holy Spirit lead you beyond the
difficulty you have with contradiction. Simone
Weil, the beautiful absurdist theologian, understood contradiction as necessary
for us to live with; because of her work, I am able to see no problem with
contradiction. But for those who need inerrancy over contradiction, go for it.
I am not bothered by either. There are those who would whine at the thought of
this . . . . . . . .
I H Marshall wrote about the connection between Luke as
historian and Luke as theologian. I read
his book in 1984. It is quite
informative and would be a good read for those who see Biblical literature as
church (invented or constructed) theology, useful for training and creeds, but
not as history. For those who think that
the Bible is not inerrant, but contradictory; I feel sorry for, because they
cannot get over the hump to believe the Bible as the Truth and the Word of God
and the sole source of Truth or Truth itself.
I am praying for that person. In
the meantime, check out some versions of these themes as laid out by interpreters
and theologians. Feel sorry for them too.
--Me
|
|||
|
Word and Spirit, as Machen well knew, worked together hand
in hand. For that reason, conversion could never be divorced from doctrine
which was a systematic summary of Scriptural teaching.
Richard Mouw argued that twentieth-century Protestantism
can be broken down into four different schools of thought regarding the
essential nature of Scripture. First are those like Machen who read the Bible
as essentially a book of theology. Second, pietists read the Bible in order to
cultivate ‘certain pious … experiences and habits fundamental to the Christian
life’. Third, moralists conceive of Christianity in essentially ethical
categories and look to the Bible for right or wrong forms of conduct. Finally,
culturalists read the Bible for wisdom about the transformation of society,
from politics and economics to education and art. Mouw admits that these
impulses are hardly ever distinct and that some movements within recent
Protestantism have exhibited all four methods of interpreting the Bible.
n D G
Hart
Comments