Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

God, Adam, and You: How Original Sin, the Flesh, and Holiness Integrate in the Christian Life
God, Adam, and You: How Original Sin, the Flesh, and Holiness Integrate in the Christian Life
God, Adam, and You: How Original Sin, the Flesh, and Holiness Integrate in the Christian Life
Ebook562 pages6 hours

God, Adam, and You: How Original Sin, the Flesh, and Holiness Integrate in the Christian Life

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

()

Read preview

About this ebook

Barna research suggests just over half of Americans who profess to be transformed by Christ believe God expects them to be holy and only a third consider themselves to be holy. This is disconcerting. Many of these same believers hold that Adam's sin and overwhelming fleshly desires are at the root of their personal sins. The purpose of this book is to re-examine Adam's legacy, the flesh, what sin really is, and God's holiness expectations of us. Do Adam's sin and fleshly desires force every person on this earth to sin in his likeness? Is sinning daily in thought, word, and deed our highest expectation? Can we love God in such a way that we can consistently obey his commands? We will discover that the impediments to a holy life may be fewer than we think and that what God commands of us we really can do!
LanguageEnglish
Release dateNov 17, 2015
ISBN9781498230674
God, Adam, and You: How Original Sin, the Flesh, and Holiness Integrate in the Christian Life
Author

Michael M. Christensen

Michael M. Christensen is a Philosophy of Religion and Theology graduate of Denver Seminary (MA), secondary science teacher, and exercise physiologist.

Related to God, Adam, and You

Related ebooks

Christianity For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for God, Adam, and You

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars
0 ratings

0 ratings0 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

    Book preview

    God, Adam, and You - Michael M. Christensen

    9781498230667.kindle.jpg

    God, Adam, and You

    How Original Sin, the Flesh, and Holiness Integrate in the Christian Life

    Michael M. Christensen

    24963.png

    God, Adam, and You

    How Original Sin, the Flesh, and Holiness Integrate in the Christian Life

    Copyright © 2015 Michael M. Christensen. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

    Wipf & Stock

    An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

    199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

    Eugene, OR 97401

    www.wipfandstock.com

    paperback ISBN 13: 978-1-4982-3066-7

    hardcover ISBN 13: 978-1-4982-3068-1

    ebook ISBN 13: 978-1-4982-3067-4

    Manufactured in the U.S.A.

    All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The NIV and New International Version are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™

    Table of Contents

    Introduction

    Chapter 1: Ingredients in the Theological Stew

    Section I: What Do the Scriptures Say about Sin, Its Source, and Its Consequences?

    Chapter 2: What Is Sin?

    Chapter 3: What Are the Consequences of Adam’s Sin?

    Chapter 4: What Are Fleshly Desires and How Do They Relate to Sin and Original Sin?

    Section II: What Do the Scriptures Say about the Definition and Nature of Holiness, God’s Expectations of Us, and Our Ability to Be Holy?

    Chapter 5: Holiness Defined

    Chapter 6: God’s Expectations of His People

    Chapter 7: Conclusions and Implications for Individuals and the Church

    Epilogue

    Appendix

    Introduction

    Background and Starting Points

    Definitions

    Reason: Reason is the ability to think critically. It is the ability to weigh statements using the laws of logic and the various argument forms (deductive, inductive, and abductive) to come to justified conclusions or inferences. It is sometimes referred to as the third act of the mind.

    Laws of Logic:

    The law of identity states that a declarative statement/proposition (in philosophy this is represented for brevity by the letter P) is identical to itself and therefore different from any other.

    The law of non-contradiction says that P cannot be both true and false in the same way and at the same time.

    The law of excluded middle states that P is either true or false and hence there is no third or middle option.

    Experience: Experience refers to the complex of relationships, events, and circumstances (in our context, especially religious) that shape our life and resulting worldview.

    Tradition: Christian tradition references what the various Christian movements (Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism) and their scholars have concluded are the beliefs and practices that best represent what is true about God, his kingdom, and human beings.

    This book is born out of my personal struggle with what I thought God expected of me as a Christian. These expectations included my motives, my inner thoughts and attitudes, my words, and actions. Further, these expectations affected my private life, family life, life within my Christian community, and life in the world at large. For example, in all of these life venues, does God expect me to be a sinlessly perfect believer? Does he expect me to sin every day in thought, word, and deed? Does he want something in the middle of those two extremes? Through discussions with other Christians, I found that I was not alone in my confusion. Other Christians were also perplexed when trying to figure out what God expected of them. As I struggled with these questions, several related issues emerged. To illustrate, some Christians told me that I was a sinner by nature and that I couldn’t help but sin and this was a remnant of the original sin that I, and every other human, had inherited from Adam. As a result, the Christian life was a struggle between two natures that warred within—the old self and the new self—and this struggle would only cease when we entered heaven. Others suggested that as a Christian I needed to have this sin nature removed by a crisis experience called entire sanctification (a term that will be discussed in chapter 2 under Wesleyanism). This meant I loved God with my whole heart and that I need not sin at all.

    These questions and issues became more muddled due to the various Christian denominations I was affiliated with as I grew up. I was raised in the Lutheran tradition, transitioned to a more charismatic fellowship in college (to include the Assemblies of God), participated in a Wesleyan Holiness tradition in my twenties to fifties, graduated from a Reformed-oriented seminary, and have recently worshipped in Evangelical Covenant and Southern Baptist churches. Each group gave somewhat different answers to the above questions and had different holiness expectations of me as a believer. These differences were found within a narrow subgroup of Christianity called Protestant evangelicalism. As I learned in seminary, there are further differences as one considers other Christian groups, such as Protestantism generally, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, with each one claiming to have the best perspective on the subject.

    Not only were there differences among Christian denominations in their interpretations, but there seemed to be differing expectations depending on which biblical passages were referenced. Paul, in Romans 5–8, presents information about how Adam affected his posterity and seemingly conflicting expectations regarding Christian holiness. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus told his disciples that they needed to be perfect as their heavenly Father is perfect when relating to their enemies (Matt 5:48). However, later in the New Testament (NT) Paul tells the Philippians that he is not perfect in his conduct, but is pressing on toward it (Phil 3:12–14).

    There obviously needs to be a thorough study of the context and likely meaning of all related texts in order to come to a plausible conclusion on how Adam and Eve’s sin affects us and how well we can meet God’s expectations for our motives, thoughts, and conduct. Looking more broadly, right thinking on original sin and holiness has a significant impact on our whole view of God, the message of the gospel, and how we represent God to those who are not Christians. Is God someone who has allowed us to be saddled with an irresistible urge to sin and then asked us to be holy like him? What is the eternal destiny of the unborn, infants, or the mentally challenged? How do our answers to these questions make us feel when we think of God as our Lord and Father? When we preach the gospel, how does Jesus’s death on the cross relate to original sin? Does his sacrifice undo any of its alleged negative effects? Did Jesus die for our sin state as well as our sins? Does the Holy Spirit provide much help in overcoming sin? How do we respond to Christians who complain about the strength of their fleshly desires and their inability to overcome sin? Can we honor God’s character coherently when non-Christians challenge the justice of original sin? Can we justify the goodness of Christianity when skeptics wonder if becoming a Christian makes any difference at all, considering the unholy behavior of some Christians?

    Statement of the Problem and Questions

    Several questions succinctly encompass our problem. What kind of spiritual baggage do we have from Adam and our flesh? How does God define sin? What are God’s spiritual expectations and goals for us on this earthly pilgrimage? All of this has led me to do some serious study, using the resources God has given. One resource is the help of Judeo-Christian history—what has Jewish theology and the Christian church from the first century to the present concluded? A second resource is the experience of both Israelites and Christians throughout history—what sinful and holy experiences have they both had? The third and most important resource is the Bible itself—what does a careful study of the Scriptures reveal about the effect of Adam’s sin, the effect of the flesh, the definition of sin, the power of present salvation, the Holy Spirit dwelling inside, and the resultant level of holiness God expects from his people?

    Plan of the Book

    The plan of this book is to arrive at the best conclusions that can be drawn from the above resources and that adequately answer our questions. This introduction will review significant issues in theological method and philosophy that impinge on this study. Topics include the proper source of theological knowledge (the Scriptures) and the appropriate use of reason, tradition, and experience (elements of the Wesleyan quadrilateral) in answering theological questions. Chapter 1 is an historical sketch of what theologians in Judaism, the early church, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Reformation, and modern Protestantism believed about the effects of original sin, what sin and holiness are, and God’s expectations regarding holiness. Chapter 2 seeks to define sin and investigate its source and nature. Chapter 3 will uncover the cost of Adam’s sin. As we analyze the Scriptures and look at original sin’s effects in our world, what direct and indirect consequences can we see? Furthermore, what are the effects of our personal sins and the sins of others? Chapter 4 discusses the flesh, that concept Paul uses repeatedly to describe sinful desires. How does it relate to original sin? What is a good definition for it? Who is responsible for it and its increase? The goal of chapter 5 is to define holiness, righteousness and other similar words. What kinds of righteousness are there? What is the source of holiness and how does a holy person act? Chapter 6 follows the holiness theme by examining God’s holiness expectations. How clear are they in Scripture? Can we actually fulfill them? Are the examples of past Christ-followers and the benefits of the new covenant adequate to the task? Finally, chapter 7 looks back over all we’ve covered, forms conclusions, and discusses implications for both individual believers and the whole church.

    Presuppositions

    The presuppositions and methods one uses to interpret biblical passages have a large effect on the conclusions reached. Presuppositions are our conscious or unconscious starting points; things we assume to be true. For the purposes of this book I will assume certain ideas, some of which certainly have evidence to support them, but providing that evidence now is beyond the scope of this book; other books adequately defend those ideas. I list my presuppositions (at least the ones that I am aware of) to clarify this book’s starting points and to avoid confusion:

    • The Bible is the authoritative source for spiritual truth on the subject of God and human spiritual life. The Bible is consistent in the truths it presents; its truths are a unity and not contradictory. There may be areas it does not address completely, which sometimes limits the conclusions we can make when formulating doctrines and theologies.

    • The meaning of a biblical text is what the author intended and what the audience understood. Further, this meaning is largely knowable and is relevant to life today.

    • Reason, Christian experience, and Judeo-Christian tradition are helpful and necessary adjuncts to interpreting the Bible and in arriving at spiritual truth.

    • Adam, Eve, Jesus, Paul, and other Old and New Testament characters were historical persons.

    • Humans have significant freedom, sometimes called libertarian freedom, (philosophers might call it incompatibilist freedom) such that they can make choices among alternatives, especially in the moral realm.

    • The laws of logic apply to every field of study, to include theology.

    • A reliance on paradox or antinomy¹ weakens any argument, especially when there is another plausible explanation that avoids them. It is better to investigate apparent paradoxes more deeply or more impartially to determine whether one, several, or all of various beliefs are false rather than accept a paradox. If all efforts fail, a paradox is acceptable as the best explanation.

    • There are things about God, ourselves, and our relationship to God that will remain mysterious due to a lack of complete knowledge. We are finite beings with finite knowledge and abilities. However, this is categorically different from using mystery or paradox as an explanation for ideas that are incoherent or contradictory.

    Sources, Methods, and Principles

    The sources, methods, and principles one uses to interpret Scripture also have a profound effect on one’s conclusions. The source used in this book will be the Bible with reason, Judeo-Christian tradition, and Christian experience as adjuncts to help us understand the meaning of various passages. The Scriptures and the three adjuncts are sometimes called the Wesleyan quadrilateral, and their use is necessary to understand any biblical passage, especially ones in which the meaning is less clear or must be inferred.

    Scriptural Adjunct—Reason

    Reason is an essential component to finding the meaning of human communication, whether it is oral, visual, or written (the Bible is included in those types of communication.) David Clark agrees and makes the further assertion that rationality transcends worldviews. He admits that certain rational principles are situation-specific, but in general, rational principles (coherence, scope or comprehensiveness, explanatory adequacy, and livability) must be followed to make any sense of the world.² He defines reason as part of our belief-forming capacities by which we draw inferences and check for consistency. The God-given inferential equipment with which each person is endowed enables us to grasp God’s revelation, distinguish it from other claimed revelations, and apply it appropriately to life.³

    When reason operates, it applies rational principles when evaluating statements making truth claims, claims that occur frequently in theology. At the base of these principles are the laws of logic: identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. If these laws are broken most human communication becomes unintelligible. Kenneth Kantzer affirms that these laws of logic are an expression of God’s nature:

    To trust the laws of logic is not to put law or logic above God. Rather, it is to recognize that the laws of logic are an expression of the rational nature of the God of Truth. He created humans in his own image so that we, like him, can think rationally. He also created an objective world that conforms to the reason of God and to our own reason so that we can trust our senses and arrive at the truth. And it is only by the use of reason in dependence on the basic laws of thought that we are able to know the truth and rest in our knowledge of it. This is true of our Christian faith and of all else as well. If we deny the basic laws of thought and particularly the law of noncontradiction, all so-called knowledge becomes mere nonsense. Our dependence on them is a necessary guide to warn us of error and to lead us to the truth. Consequently, the Scriptures call us to make judgments on the basis of the laws of thought—as, for example, in the tests of a prophet (Deut

    13

    :

    18

    ), in the necessity of rejecting a false gospel (Gal

    1

    :

    3

    ), and in the application of scriptural truth (Isa

    1

    :

    18

    ).

    Reason is helpful to those of us who have faith in God because biblical faith involves three components, all of which rely on reason—notitia (understanding the Christian faith’s content), assensus (the intellect’s acceptance of the truth of some proposition), and fiducia (trust in God). Trust is based on what we understand and accept as true. Trust is not a leap into the dark, but a step toward what, or who, we have good reason to believe in.

    Reason is also a key component of philosophy, which can be used as a servant of theology. Philosophy helps clarify theological concepts and is essential to the task of integration, which involves blending our scripturally based theological beliefs with knowledge from other disciplines (e.g., history, psychology, sociology, the physical and biological sciences, and politics) into a coherent Christian worldview.⁶ Further, philosophy can provide external conceptual problems for a theology as part of a rational evaluation of theories within it (e.g., when Galileo’s astronomical evidence for a sun-centered solar system came in conflict with the then current theological idea of an earth-centered system).⁷ Clark agrees that philosophy helps serve theology by demanding clear definitions and distinctions, requiring logical form, identifying underlying assumptions, exploring latent presuppositions within a viewpoint, critically evaluating the evidential status of truth claims, and qualifying conclusions.⁸ In short, philosophy inspects and evaluates theological foundations much like a building inspector would a physical structure.

    Types of Reasoning

    Reasoning is frequently divided into two major types—deductive and inductive—and both are used in theology. Deduction starts with two premises or declarative statements (the first is usually a broad general statement and the second is more specific), followed by a conclusion based on those statements. If the conclusion follows the formal rules of logic and avoids informal fallacies (see Appendix), the argument proposed is called valid; if it doesn’t, the argument is invalid. However, to be a sound argument, the form must be valid and the premises must be true. If these two conditions aren’t met, the argument is unsound.⁹ For example, consider:

    Premise 1: I am a person.
    Premise 2: Paul declares that all persons have sinned (Rom 3:23).
    Premise 3: Paul asserts that Christ died for us while we were still sinners (Rom 5:8).
    Conclusion: I am a sinner for whom Christ died. This is a sound argument (true premises and valid form).

    Induction usually starts with observations or particular statements and is followed by a general conclusion. Because the statements are individual bits of information and the conclusion is usually general in nature, the conclusion can never be totally certain, but can only possess varying degrees of probability, depending on the apparent truthfulness of the premises (and sometimes the number of them—the more the better).¹⁰ For example, if we observe many times in the Scriptures and see statements declaring that God is impartial, and see a few instances where he appears to be partial, this still leads to the conclusion that God is impartial. Osborne concludes that both deduction and induction are important forms to use in theological interpretation. They are interdependent and must be kept in dynamic balance.¹¹

    A third type of reasoning is called inference to the best explanation (IBE), or sometimes abduction or adduction. This technique involves evaluating plausible yet competing explanations for data we are concerned with. In our case, it would be evaluating which theory of human anthropology and holiness best fits the scriptural data as interpreted by tradition, reason, and experience. Although there is debate over which criteria produce the best explanation, Moreland and Craig suggest there is general agreement that the following are helpful:

    1. Explanatory scope: Which theory explains the widest range of data?

    2. Explanatory power: Which theory makes the data the most epistemically probable?

    3. Plausibility: Which theory is implied by the greatest variety of accepted truths?

    4. Less ad hoc: Which theory produces the fewest new suppositions?

    5. Accord with accepted beliefs: Which theory, when combined with accepted truths, implies the fewest falsehoods?

    6. Comparative superiority: Which theory bests its rivals in items 1–5?¹²

    Osborne proposes a similar list of criteria for judging the veracity of our theological theories. He holds that these criteria function in a critical realism approach to theology, which seems the most appropriate approach for the way God has revealed truth to us (e.g., in history, through inspired persons, who use language and leave writings). It is realistic in that it asserts theological ideas are valid representations of the way things are. Further, theological assertions can be subject to various criteria of verification like other knowledge in the sciences or history. The approach is critical since it realizes that assertions approximate truth and do not define it for all time. The process is one of continual improvement in methods and conclusions. Hence, there is a hermeneutical spiral that spirals closer and closer to the truth. As we humbly allow our interpretations to be evaluated by the text of Scripture and this then refines our interpretations, we spiral inward toward the truth. Practically, there is also a contextual spiral in which our contextualizations more properly apply the text’s meaning to Christian life today.¹³

    Several authors have produced similar groups of criteria that aid in verifying theological claims. Earlier, Clark listed several principles helpful in verifying truth claims—coherence, scope or comprehensiveness, explanatory adequacy, and livability. Harold Netland’s list includes internal consistency among beliefs, freedom from ad hoc hypotheses, congruence with other fields of study (such as history and the sciences), and the ability to explain basic aspects of human experience (explanatory power).¹⁴ Vanhoozer advances five necessary rules of reflective discourse that overlap somewhat with these: clarity, logical consistency, conceptual coherence, comprehensiveness, and criticizability.¹⁵ William Wainwright suggests the criteria used to evaluate metaphysical systems (e.g., naturalism, religious truth statements [from Christianity or other world religions], and religious pluralism) can also be used to evaluate doctrinal schemes and reduce interreligious disputes. Germane to the present discussion, we suggest Wainwright’s criteria, which overlap significantly with the foregoing criteria, can help resolve intra-religious disputes within Christianity. Wainwright describes three formal criteria: 1) internal consistency and freedom from logical error. This includes freedom from ad hoc hypotheses, which are only used to enable the system to cope with counterevidence. 2) Coherence—the ability of a set of ideas to hang together and be mutually reinforcing, 3) simplicity, as preferred over complexity. Two further criteria relate to a theory’s explanatory power: 4) scope, which describes a theory’s ability to account for a wide range of human experience (the physical universe, general human experience, religious experience), and 5) explanatory adequacy, which describes a system’s ability to integrate data and concepts from other domains—science, art, psychology, sociology, ethics, etc. The last criteria, 6) existential effects, asks: Does the theory help an individual cope successfully with his or her total environment and the challenges of life?¹⁶

    Kenneth Samples lists nine criteria by which to evaluate philosophical or religious worldviews. He uses several ingredients represented by many of the above schemes. What some put under the umbrella of scope or plausibility he calls correspondence—does a worldview correspond with well-established facts and general human experience? His pragmatic and existential tests are what others call existential livability. He includes verification and relates this more to empirical and scientific data. His cumulative and competitive competence tests really summarize the whole IBE process.¹⁷

    Nancy Pearcey uses cues from Romans 1 to affirm that all worldviews must deal with the facts of general revelation (the physical creation and human nature) and can be tested to the extent they either explain or fail to explain it. She uses five strategies to critique worldviews, 1) identify the idol, 2) identify the idol’s reductionism, 3) test the idol: does it contradict what we know about the world? 4) test the idol: does it contradict itself? and 5) replace the idol: make the case for Christianity.¹⁸ Though these criteria apply to worldviews outside Christianity, they mimic the strategies that can evaluate any truth claim, whether outside or inside Christianity.

    Hermeneutics

    Under the umbrella of reason is the science and art of biblical interpretation or hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a science in that it provides helpful laws and principles of effective interpretation. It is an art because it demands skill and insight to apply the laws and principles without breaking them. It is also spiritual, because biblical interpretation is a task for those who know God and who humbly seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance in their efforts.¹⁹ The Holy Spirit directs our minds to the spiritual truths we need to hear, especially those truths necessary for our salvation and holiness. He doesn’t seem to work by directly imparting every Scripture’s meaning to our minds, but seems to push us to skillfully use the tools of interpretation. Christians have wrestled with some biblical passages and doctrines for millennia without knowing exactly what they mean (consider the millennium, for example). These are things that are not critical for our salvation or holiness and we must be content to know some things without total certainty.

    To find the meaning of a text, hermeneutics addresses several aspects. There is the meaning the biblical author intended, the meaning the words and grammar of a text convey, and the meaning the reader understands. These should all be in agreement. The original readers wanted to know what the author meant by the words and sentences used. We twenty-first century readers of Scripture want the same thing; we want to know what the biblical author, and the God that inspired that author, meant for them and us. Because each biblical text came from a certain author with a set of pre-understandings, at a certain time in history, in a specific culture, and with a specific purpose for the intended audience, we must incorporate these ingredients if we want the fullest understanding.²⁰ This authorial intent can only be known, however, through the written text with its words and grammar.

    Further, to arrive at the intended meaning certain contexts must be taken into account. Historical-cultural context deals with the identity of the author and audience, the date the text was written, the purpose and themes of the text, and the customs and norms of the surrounding society. The literary context examines the sentences and paragraphs immediately around a text and expands to consider the whole biblical book, books by the same author, the testament, biblical genres, and the Bible as a whole.²¹ These expanding contexts give useful insight into the meaning of the words, phrases, or sentences the author uses.

    Examining the text itself is the task of exegesis. Word studies in the Bible’s original languages (Hebrew and Greek), grammar studies, the structure of sentences (syntax), and the literary genre of a text (e.g., narrative, letter, parable, poetry, wisdom literature, apocalyptic) make up this task. The main task of hermeneutics, then, is to discover the author-centered textual meaning. The best approach to finding that meaning is to use the four ingredients of literary context, historical-cultural background, word meanings, and grammatical structure. Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard concur, proposing that regardless of the genre, an interpretation that is not faithful to all four of these aspects of the text is unlikely to be the meaning the writer intended.²²

    The above exegetical contexts are used to interpret biblical passages. On the shoulders of this process we use hermeneutical procedures to crystallize a whole biblical doctrine. Grant Osborne lists several helpful steps when forming a biblical doctrine: 1) Discover and acknowledge our presuppositions and let the biblical text influence them. 2) Inductively collect all passages that apply to the doctrine studied. 3) Exegete all passages in their context. 4) Organize the texts into a biblical theology. 5) Trace the doctrine through church history. 6) Study competing models of the doctrine. 7) Recontextualize the doctrine for the current culture, showing the interdependence of this doctrine with other doctrines. 8) Rework your existing systematic theology if necessary. 9) Work out the implications of any reformulations for the individual Christian and the church as a whole.²³ Osborne, in a different section of his book, lists another important guideline, the analogy of Scripture, which assumes the clarity and unity of the main points of the Bible. The guideline asserts that when formulating doctrines that clearer, more numerous, and more intentionally didactic (teaching) passages should carry more weight than single, obscure, or descriptive passages. This implies that doctrines should summarize what all of Scripture has to say (tota scriptura). By further implication, if there are no clear passages, then a dogma (an established teaching on a subject) should not be made from them.²⁴

    Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest propose a comparable paradigm for doing theology in their work, Integrative Theology. Their theological method involves six successive steps: 1) Identify the theological problem or question under consideration. 2) Identify the various solutions to the problem in the history of Christian thought. 3) Using the primary source of theological knowledge, the Bible, apply responsible hermeneutical procedures to interpret the relevant passages. 4) Order the various passages into a coherent doctrine, verifying one’s conclusions via the threefold test for truth—logical consistency, agreement with Scripture, and existential viability. 5) Defend your doctrinal conclusions against competing theologies, philosophies, or religions. 6) Apply the theology to specific life situations.²⁵

    In conclusion, it appears hermeneutics has a goal beyond understanding a certain passage of Scripture. This goal is to construct a systematic theology—a theology that is true, coherent, and comprehensive,²⁶ which reminds us of the list of criteria for developing an IBE and the hermeneutical spiral. We will incorporate all of these elements in arriving at a procedure that will spiral us toward the truth regarding original sin, sin, the flesh, and holiness.

    Scriptural Adjunct—Experience

    Osborne helpfully defines experience as the complex of events and circumstances (especially religious) that shape our life and resulting worldview. More specifically to our discussion, our subjective experiences and the beliefs that are affected by them influence the way we interpret biblical evidence.²⁷ This experience is best seen as the experience of the church as a whole and not just that of the professional theologian, pastor, or believer. Further, experience’s influence could be either positive or negative. Experience could be a positive when it is a seasoned wisdom. As a seasoned wisdom it then acts as a dialogical partner, along with tradition and reason, revering Scripture as the source of Christian truth. It acts as a negative when it is used as an autonomous authority, asking reason, previous tradition, and the Scriptures to submit to it.²⁸

    Scriptural Adjunct—Tradition

    The concept of tradition involves referencing what the various Christian movements (Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism) and their scholars have concluded are the beliefs and practices that best represent what is true about God, his kingdom, and human beings. In other words, using the Bible, reason, their own tradition, and Christian experience, what have Christian groups in the past determined to be good theology? There is value in mining the centuries of Christian wisdom and writings that relate to a theological subject. Theological treatises, apologies, and creeds are all helpful and have been developed by careful thought and consensus. No single person possesses every insight and we learn when we understand the thinking patterns, methods, and conclusions of those who have diligently studied before us.²⁹ Further, tradition shields us from being blown away with every wind of doctrine. It gives us a place to start until we develop a firm grasp of what the Bible teaches on a subject. If our tradition is confirmed we can feel confident about our beliefs.

    Tradition is helpful but it is not primary when searching for what the Scriptures teach. Lewis and Demarest call tradition a provisional authority. It is provisional until we verify its faithfulness to the total revelation of the Bible and check that it provides the most coherent account of the biblical text. If it does, it should be kept; if not, it should be modified or discarded.³⁰ No belief should be validated by a theological tradition alone since a tradition was itself established by human beings who studied and came to certain conclusions in a certain historical context. Tradition should be evaluated by its agreement with Scripture and its relevance to the current context.³¹

    Sometimes it is difficult to determine which Christian tradition to prefer. Should the early church fathers take precedence? Should my particular Christian division have sway (Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, or Protestantism)? Should my denominational affiliation have the greatest weight? Maybe a well-respected theologian should be given preeminence.

    If a tradition is maintained for its own sake, it can become traditionalism. Clark describes it:

    Traditionalism . . . is a degenerating conservatism that expends too many resources staking out territory and defending boundaries. At times this growing conservatism identifies itself with a particular form of theology from the past. It begins to position itself primarily as the guardian of this tradition, and it digs in its heels against innovations that threaten change. When it takes up this role, traditionalism can lose capacity for honest self-criticism. It can forget that any model has limits and requires ongoing correction. . . . It can even hide political agendas or power interests, as various postmodern analyses make clear.³²

    By nature, traditionalism abhors change. Osborne suggests such changes can be dangerous for those rocking the theological boat. Nontraditional ideas challenge the theological community and can result in the loss of one’s job or ministry—professors lose posts, candidates are disqualified for job openings, students have papers rejected, or alternative ideas are neglected or rejected by those in power.³³ There is deliberate pressure to conform and the questioning of beliefs is repressed. Further, traditionalism can stifle any meaningful interaction with those who have different traditions. It feels threatened by conflicting ideas and doesn’t want to confuse persons within its ranks with those ideas.

    It appears, then, that tradition can have both positive and negative effects on our doctrinal formulations. Positively, it provides a rich background from which we can see how previous generations have wrestled with finding the truth and we can learn from their efforts. Negatively, it can limit our thinking, prejudice our judgment, and prevent us from entertaining ideas that are closer to the truth than ones we now possess.

    The relationship among Scripture and the three adjuncts is depicted well by the following figure. Our theology is created and is most valid as the three adjuncts work on the foundation of the Scriptures.

    27541.jpg

    Figure

    1

    : A Modified Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

    Conclusion

    Based on the above discussion, how should we proceed? It seems that reason and logic (which include hermeneutical principles) are very helpful in interpreting Scripture

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1