Exegesis then is the drawing out of meaning, wisdom, concepts, advice, conclusions, from the Bible as the Word of God.
Both a tenacious clinging to orthodoxy and an excessive need for novelty have their dangers.
The doctrine of God as Trinity is a reasonable conclusion adopted from the Bible, as is the Rapture of the Saints. Neither word is present in the text, but both are reliable inferences. To get these concepts from the Bible we have to read the New Testament thoroughly and think a little. Creeds like the Nicene and the Westminster Catechisms are further examples of distillations of Biblical concepts. Both are widely respected and useful.
Now there is a danger of making unreliable inferences from the information we have. But if we don't try, we won't discover anything new. In the case of Biblical exegesis, the information we have is...the Bible....of course....plus our experiences, direct, here-say, or reading we have done.
In the secular field I would say that the theory of evolution is a 'discovery' based on existing evidence. I believe it to be incorrect for explaining our origins.(see my blog www.creationandlogic.blogspot) Returning to Scripture, it is clear that some historic statements by church leaders are based on unbalanced inference from the Biblical text. Pope Gregory VII supposedly used scripture to justify 'articles of faith' such as the following;
'It may be permitted (to the Pope) to depose emperors'
'(The Pope) himself may be judged by no-one'
'The (Roman) Church has never erred, nor will it, to all eternity....'
There is also a danger in sticking too doggedly to existing orthodoxy. For one thing, the sort of stuff above, once seen as new Biblically-based thought, can become unchallenged orthodoxy.
Another example about orthodoxy from the secular field. I hear that the recent financial crash was at least partially due to bankers slavishly using a formula called the Black-Scholes equation to evaluate the value of financial products called derivatives. This was orthodoxy. The inventors of the formula got a Nobel prize. It was accurate enough when used within certain constraints, but became highly inaccurate in extreme conditions of trading. Traders could defend themselves by saying the used the accepted formula. This was an appeal to orthodoxy.
Now in the last post I said there is room for orthodoxy. There are certain things that are so clear in Scripture that they must be accepted. It is clearly perverse and evasive to try and deny them, yet there are those who do, such as Jehovah's Witnesses. But there are a lot of other areas where opinions are subjective. We need to be selective about what we take on board. There are some conclusions I have come to where I am keen to state that what I am saying is my opinion for you to consider, and no more than that.
In any case, we will never reduce God to a formula that fits in our head. If we could, we would not need to consult and submit to a living Being. We would not have to learn by engaging with others. We would know what God wanted from our clever formula.
Questions arise in our minds and we like to search Scripture, and read existing opinions, in order to get an answer. If you are like me and do this a lot, I think it can be helpful. God is not against us asking questions if we really want the answers.
People who like to see something new in the Scriptures are good for the Body provided we do not take their opinions as automatically authoritative, like the Pope wanted his followers to in the examples above. Preachers and teachers are likely to make mistakes at times. God can use them to bring new revelation and understanding. But we must test what is said and hold to the good.
Teaching on healing, prosperity and positive confession has blessed the Body. However, often it has been presented in a simplistic, formulaic way. But don't throw it out altogether because of that.
Martin Luther was a man who challenged orthodoxy. Most of his conclusions were valid. His starting point was Scripture. He questioned orthodoxy of the day and went to the source material.
Both a tenacious clinging to orthodoxy and an excessive need for novelty have their dangers.
The doctrine of God as Trinity is a reasonable conclusion adopted from the Bible, as is the Rapture of the Saints. Neither word is present in the text, but both are reliable inferences. To get these concepts from the Bible we have to read the New Testament thoroughly and think a little. Creeds like the Nicene and the Westminster Catechisms are further examples of distillations of Biblical concepts. Both are widely respected and useful.
Now there is a danger of making unreliable inferences from the information we have. But if we don't try, we won't discover anything new. In the case of Biblical exegesis, the information we have is...the Bible....of course....plus our experiences, direct, here-say, or reading we have done.
In the secular field I would say that the theory of evolution is a 'discovery' based on existing evidence. I believe it to be incorrect for explaining our origins.(see my blog www.creationandlogic.blogspot) Returning to Scripture, it is clear that some historic statements by church leaders are based on unbalanced inference from the Biblical text. Pope Gregory VII supposedly used scripture to justify 'articles of faith' such as the following;
'It may be permitted (to the Pope) to depose emperors'
'(The Pope) himself may be judged by no-one'
'The (Roman) Church has never erred, nor will it, to all eternity....'
There is also a danger in sticking too doggedly to existing orthodoxy. For one thing, the sort of stuff above, once seen as new Biblically-based thought, can become unchallenged orthodoxy.
Another example about orthodoxy from the secular field. I hear that the recent financial crash was at least partially due to bankers slavishly using a formula called the Black-Scholes equation to evaluate the value of financial products called derivatives. This was orthodoxy. The inventors of the formula got a Nobel prize. It was accurate enough when used within certain constraints, but became highly inaccurate in extreme conditions of trading. Traders could defend themselves by saying the used the accepted formula. This was an appeal to orthodoxy.
Now in the last post I said there is room for orthodoxy. There are certain things that are so clear in Scripture that they must be accepted. It is clearly perverse and evasive to try and deny them, yet there are those who do, such as Jehovah's Witnesses. But there are a lot of other areas where opinions are subjective. We need to be selective about what we take on board. There are some conclusions I have come to where I am keen to state that what I am saying is my opinion for you to consider, and no more than that.
In any case, we will never reduce God to a formula that fits in our head. If we could, we would not need to consult and submit to a living Being. We would not have to learn by engaging with others. We would know what God wanted from our clever formula.
Questions arise in our minds and we like to search Scripture, and read existing opinions, in order to get an answer. If you are like me and do this a lot, I think it can be helpful. God is not against us asking questions if we really want the answers.
People who like to see something new in the Scriptures are good for the Body provided we do not take their opinions as automatically authoritative, like the Pope wanted his followers to in the examples above. Preachers and teachers are likely to make mistakes at times. God can use them to bring new revelation and understanding. But we must test what is said and hold to the good.
Teaching on healing, prosperity and positive confession has blessed the Body. However, often it has been presented in a simplistic, formulaic way. But don't throw it out altogether because of that.
Martin Luther was a man who challenged orthodoxy. Most of his conclusions were valid. His starting point was Scripture. He questioned orthodoxy of the day and went to the source material.
No comments:
Post a Comment